A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
--Overview--
This is a debate open to everyone. Voting is open to all except the following people: imabench, coal (YYW), Zeichen and SamStevens. This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. I am taking the Pro position.
--Topic--
A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Good luck to my future opponent.
Con forfeit.
Con was attempting to put up a decent case, but started to veer into ad hominem attacks and then Con forfeited 2 rounds leaving Pro's case basically untouched AND the rules explicitly state that forfeiture warrants a loss AND Pro even pointed this out last round. So, the forfeits mean dropped arguments and a loss for Con.
Forfeiture, and no challenge to pro's case (claiming someone should shut up and not make a case at all, isn't the same as challenging it).
...
Con's tactic (he should have challenged a debate on that topic, not made this off topic rant):
Con skipped half the debate rounds in what I'm guessing is a protest against intellectual elitism? What he did post was strictly off topic. I would by no means call it a K to the topic, because even those are related to the topic. This felt more like asking people to vote for him, because they like him more or that they hold some grudge against her from activity on another site.
Mafia is a waste of time:
I do thank con for the reminder of such a good debate.
This debate is a waste of time:
Like my old vote... "I'd say it's a waste of time (which isn't to say that's not people's right to waste their time how they see fit)."
Voting Standards:
When con agreed to debate the topic, he did so under a specific framework. Such includes the inability to be penalized a conduct point. Such includes that we the judges would weight the arguments in question under the precise resolution defined. You don't like the resolution, request it be changed prior to acceptance.
Some of the lines about how judges should vote for whom appealed to their their bleeding heart more (AKA, just vote your bias!), seemed highly inspired by notable intellectual rejects who trade votes instead of winning debates by merit (not to say winning the old fashioned way, given that fellatio was sometimes on offer for favorable votes... To be clear, I am highlighting the problem of the slope his argument is on, to my knowledge con has never been associated with those who are outright opposed to judicial integrity).
God:
Within the confines of this debate, pro proved that God (as defined) is a self contradicting concept. I wish her luck in finding an opponent to actually debate this with.
Two forfeits plus nothing but ad homs from con. All dropped arguments are considered concessions by me. Since con forfeited two rounds he essentially dropped pro's entire arguments and conceded them. Rule one of the debate is no forfeits. Victory to pro.
1.) Con offers no argument whatsoever against the resolution, at all of any kind.
Pro wins on the resolution.
2.) Con clearly offered a Kritik argument that challenged an implicit assumption of the resolution. Haggling over whether this is a theory argument, or Kritik clearly goes to pro as pros main points are un-refuted. This together with exceptionally poor conduct that has no place in a debate (that pro highlighted in round 2), forfeits, etc are clearly also rule violations.
Pro wins on the grounds of the rules.
3.) is debate just a game.
I will consider any argument for debates, even ones like this which are so far left field, it’s travelled once around the earth to arrive at right-field. Cons argument are essentially that I should not consider any debate that doesn’t have some positive real world impact. If I were to weigh cons argument by the very merits he asks me to - then It is not clear why his debate approach in this single debate here should change the world.
The only argument for why this should be what debate is for, is that it’s not a game - and we know it’s not a game because pro is not playing pool - together with other similar assertions presented without justification.
This is wholly unwarranted claim is the basis for this kritik and pro gives me no good reason to believe it. Why would Con be playing pool if debate was a game?
As a result, I can’t really consider anything that comes after as warranted.
Pro again wins.
4.) who has more real world impact.
Even if I overlook points 1-3, and vote on clear impact to the real world, con offers a substantial number of points in addition to this real world impact argument. I agree with pro that these are wasting pros time - something con argued is a negative impact.
Con also offers no framework for how the content of this nonsense has any impact on the real world: it mainly boils down to asserting that this resolution will change no ones mind either way - something pro addresses.
Pro pointing out that this weird anarchic thread of argument is detrimental debate is compelling, as is the idea that pro argues that honing debate arguments and position is beneficial clearly seems more reasonable.
As a result, even voting based on cons argued voting lens means I am compelled to vote for pro too.
5.) The rules
I’m willing to accept harms from rules, and reject rules as presented rather than argued by fiat.
I will actually grant cons argument that there is some notional inherent harm in accepting the kritik portion of the argument, and that he shouldn’t be marked down on that particular rule violation - as this was not directly addressed by pro.
However, for the remainder of the rule violations con offers no argument for harm for the rules, and gives me no clear reason to reject them. So these must stand - which means I must accept those rule violations.
This goes pros way too.
6.) Pro argues the resolution has been affirmed
- and says if I think the resolution should be debated, I should consider it affirmed. As I do generally feel the resolution is the most important point of the debate, id agree with pro here too.
Conclusion: there is no lens or analysis that I could warrant awarding this to con. While the approach was ballsy from con - the sloppy, and petulant way he argued let him down, the appearance of trolling undermines his position in the very lens he argued to judge him by, so I have to say this is an easy vote for pro.
Con attacked the character of Pro and took it a little stranger than Ad Hominem, he relied on the 'appeal to hypocrisy' fallacy.
=======
CREDIT TO: https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/appeal-to-hypocrisy/
The Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Conclusion: Therefore X is false.
=======
So, what Con failed to do in this debate is explain why, if Pro has stated elsewhere that activities online that have barely any real-life impact waste life that therefore those activities should result in us concluding that the resolution in false. Pro is entitled to be a hypocrite, Pro is entitled to not only play devil's advocate but break their moral code or life prioritising system in order to engage in the arena of debate. It is not our place as 'judges' to judge their moral integrity when we officially vote (that's for outside of the arena) but rather to judge if Pro represented the resolution well or Con tore at it well enough in a debate of this format.
What I am left with is Con completely offering 0 arguments against the resolution but instead Con defeated their own case, because Wylted is wasting his own life as are voters under the system of life priorities that Con is advocating (on behalf of Pro in the past on the Forums).
Pro explained how an omnipotent being, even if it is omniscient, is invalid to be tested for omniscience as it could not only fool any test but the very idea that we could test the being with components within the reality that it totally controls and has created is ludicrous.
Con offered 0 refutations to this, one would be that the ability to test omniscience is not absence of untested omniscience and to Kritik the Kritik back onto Pro and push harder with the rest of the case to impress and convince voters that the resolution is false due to others factors while leaving that as a stale-mate counter-Kritik'd angle. Con didn't do so, thus the Kritk alone won Pro the debate.
Pro also Kritiks that evidence of complexity of design necessitates a creator, to this Con offered 0 refutation.
Con lost the debate and forfeited the last 2 Rounds. Con tried voter intimidation against me (which is a CoC violation on 2 counts due to how he encouraged his opponent to join in with it as well) in the comments but because he's Wylted, the mods won't do anything about it and I feel bad for him so I'll let it be.
is it really that fine tuned ? 99.999999% is uninhabitable
I'm citing this debate in the Kritik guide.
Thank you for your comment. Here is my responses to your arguments:
Argument 1: If God isn't perfect, then proving God's existence becomes impossible, because you couldn't distinguish intention from creation of the universe. In other words, if are trying to prove God's existence through the creation of the universe, how do we know what's a mistake and what isn't? Thus, saying that God isn't perfect couldn't be used as evidence to negate the resolution.
Argument 2: If we're unable to perceive God's omniscience and omnipotence, then we're unable to use it as evidence of his existence.
If God chooses not to take action with his qualities, then again, we cannot use anything as evidence of his existence.
Thank you for voting :)
While I agree that an intelligent designer (or entity, as it were), would attempt to find the most simplistic modalities by which to create and run our universe, I disagree that our universe being complex is evidence against an intelligent designer. This may simply be an inevitable consequence of the evolution of conditions originally made by a creator - just like winding up a toy car and then letting it take off. I find your premise very interesting and thought-out, but ultimately flawed.
Argument 1: I think your argument is that there are things that need to be re-tuned in the universe, and the fact that they aren't already properly tuned is evidence that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer because he's omniscient and omnipotent - and would therefore be able to create a universe that didn't need re-tuning. My contention is that God isn't perfect, and did not create the universe as such the first time around. Or, by giving free will to humans and possibly the universe as well (see "argument 2"), he created an inevitable chaotic quality to the universe.
Argument 2: I believe Omniscience and Omnipotence can be demonstrated in ways we may not be able to perceive, for example perhaps holding together the laws by which our universe operates - i.e., physics. However, assuming this isn't true, I can tell you that an entity such as God could possess both qualities but simply choose not to take action with them. It's said God endowed humans with free will - the freedom to make choices that govern their lives, and more importantly not interfering with the consequences of said choices. If free will is applied not just to humans, but to the universe as well, then God could still be omniscient and omnipotent without using these qualities to affect the universe he created.
I really enjoyed this debate, I hope you keep posting!
Thank you, Ragnar, for you effort in voting :)
Wow, 47.41%!!!!
Dude, I have a win-ratio of well over 90% on DDO. You clearly don't know who you're talking to. But it's okay. Not everyone could beat a front-page Debate Leaderboard debater like me.
"tbh I really don't care about win percentage" -- Nice coping mechanism. By the look of it, it looks like you debate to lose.
Yeah. If you look at my percentage of my entire 8+ year debate history, I have about a 47.41% win rate, which is about average especially considering my early debates were total shit
That just shows how flawed the Elo system is here.
tbh I really don't care about win percentage
Rofl. Given that I'm now no. 6 on the leaderboard...
It looks like your sub-50% win-ratio is recovering, so I'd hate to cause you further embarrassment.
Not a problem. I'd gladly take this debate sometime soon if you wanna redo it.
Thank you for the concise vote, Virtuoso : >
Thank you, Ramshutu, for taking the time to create a thorough vote :)
1-3
Thank you, RM, for your reasonable vote :)
I usually without reading arguments until debates are finished, but you calling focus on the resolution silly got my attention...
Had the word been proof, the con side would be very very difficult. Instead she took the hard one, basically trying to argue against raw evidence...
As per your off topic case, I wonder why you did not simply start a debate on that topic instead of hijacking this one? I actually enjoyed the read, particularly the callbacks to that rather epic debate. I'll be sure to cast a real vote with feedback, not a mere "forfeiture."
I think the focus on the word evidence is silly, though obviously this was meant to be somewhat of a semantic debate. If she said "proof" the debate really would give the con side no room to argue.
Hard one, as evidence does not mean proof.
No when he fought Tommy Gun he was a street fighter. Have you even seen the movies? He was street tough who just happened to be able to hold his own in the ring.
A better analogy would be that you're Rambo and SHE is Rocky Balboa. That is iconic comparison.
Rocky Balboa was a prize-fighter. A showman overall.
He won well and had grit but he was no street fighter.
This is what debate is supposed to be like. Not a prize fight, but a street fight. I am Rocky Balboa and analgesic is acting like Tommy Gun
You'd need to show how the fine-tunedness is consistent with what you'd expect to see if an omni-God created the universe. The debate has gone off the rails though so it's too late for that.
Then prove it is indicative to a omniscient omnipotent creator God, as opposed to perhaps a creator God who is not omniscient, but very nearly omniscient.
I agree that countering his/her arguments won't make you win the debate because you need to provide a positive case for how the fine-tuned universe evidences an omni-God. It's not impossible at all.
"Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".
- Paul Davies
If "evidence" is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" then all you'd need to do is show how the fine-tuned universe is indicative of an all-powerful, all-intelligent creator.
Con's position is not winnable in that way. You have to make positive arguments that a fine tuned universe means that the fine tuner is omniscient and omnipotent. Really con's position is impossible to arguewithout being creative against a competent opponent.
I wish this debate would've been taken seriously. Since Wylted a decided not to debate the topic, I'll put in my two cents.
Your main arguments, on complexity and fine-tuning, fail for the following reasons:
Basically, you've argued that intelligently designed things are supposed to work simpler, not more complexly. Thus, the complexity in the universe is not evidence of God.
If we found ourselves in a simple, plain, and small universe, this would be more indicative of having originated accidentally. The vastness, complexity, and intricacy of the universe has inspired people for thousands of years to question whether it's part of a grand design. If a creator God wanted to indirectly reveal himself, creating a complex universe would be preferable to a simple one.
Your next argument, about tuning, is off-topic. You're only debating whether the fine-tuned universe, as defined by the fine-tuned universe proposition, is evidence of God. Nowhere in the definition of the fine-tuned universe proposition does it indicate "tuning" in the sense that one might tune an instrument. "Tuned" in this sense just means that all the constants that determine that composition of the universe, had they been infinitesimally different, things like matter, complex chemistry, and the universe itself would be unlikely to exist.
Much better.
iS tHaT tHe BeSt YoU'vE gOt?
yOu WiLl NeVeR dEfEaT mE!
*mAnIaCaL lAuGhiNg*
Is that the best you got? Is that how you deal with adversity? Give me your best.
That's because you don't understand he is full of shit about his reasoning, nor do you understand how to properly judge a debate. Also you of all people. You beautiful unique flower, should know that merely following along with the crowd is not a good reason to do something.
I don't see how you think it's fine to so blatantly break the rules of a debate. I mean, if the rules are intentionally unfair, like 'my opponent will not argue in this debate', then I could understand breaking the rules. But I used some pretty generic rules that plenty of other debaters use. You really can't blame RM for already deciding who won the debate, when you've done something that instantly merits a loss.
As a judge you are required to actually suspend most of your thinking and substitute it for what both debaters have presented. I don't know what you are thinking. I do know that if your thoughts matter that much and you have already decided a winner than you will not vote fairly. I don't expect you to vote fairly though. You are after all a bully.
I actually cannot give a single shit more for your inane ramblings about what I am or am not thinking.
You come up with what you want, everyone knows who the irrational madman is between us.
That doesn't even matter. You just showed a disregard for the tabula rasa mindset.
Wylted, you didn't even debate the fucking topic at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfJhMfOPWdE
^ Slight epilepsy warning.
That is incorrect for reasons I will lay out in the debate. For one that is not a kritik. For another thing the rules are not important nor should one side have a right to impose rules on the other side.
You broke the rules of the debate by running a Kritik. If I were voting on this, you would have immediately lost. You've actually wasted my time because I was looking to debate the resolution, not have someone tell me that I'm wasting my time. That's why trolling, personal attacks and Kritiks are often banned from debates -- they just waste everyone's time.
I don't want to put words into RM's textfield, but I imagine that's the reason he's already decided a winner.
I want your blessing for a counter vote if he votes. He has decided the winner after the first round already.
My arguments are really, really bad? Have you had a look at your ones? You're sitting at a win-ratio of 39%.
It's funny how the smallest dogs bark the most.
RM actually hates my guts. I considered preventing him from voting on this debate, but I don't see him as the kind of person to vote maliciously on a debate out of spite, unlike imabench or yyw.
I personally don't like many things RM does, but I respect his honourable nature, and so I allowed him to vote.
You were regardless despite me clearly being in the lead here
Wylted, I am voting you down on conduct and arguments as is.
looking forward to your arguments
The judges may not respond well to the type of argument I am making here though.
LOL. The problem is her arguments are really really bad.
She may not feel like it after crushing me