Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
11
debates
54.55%
won
Topic
#5254
There is Evidence for a Creator of the Universe
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1774
rating
95
debates
77.37%
won
Description
What an interesting little universe we have found ourselves in. Except, it's not little at all...it is freaking massive. Greater than the expanse of the human mind's comprehension, greater than humanity could ever achieve in history, and the greatest thing we have ever seen with our eyes. Look down. Look at your body. Look at the flowers of the earth. Look at the animals that roam it. Look at the configuration of chemicals, configurations of configurations of configurations, it never ends. The complexity continues to be discovered, and we still don't know it all. What does it all mean? How did this happen? The unbelievable and unique design of every different kind of animal to ever exist, including yourself, and the resourcefulness of it all, screams to a creator. Every possible thing that could have been accommodated for that you would never have even considered has been here all along. Biologically, astronomically, in physics, you name it. Every element of the universe accommodates for things in clever ways, and the ways in which it is designed is beyond our intellectual capacity. Just because you have never seen the creator before doesn't mean He's not there. It doesn't mean that you must conclude that nature created itself. The laws of physics continuously fight against the idea that it created the entire universe by chance, and that through it all, there is no spiritual realm, which further concludes that even your very consciousness is merely fabricated by neural networks. The more we observe and study the universe, and the laws of physics, the more reasons we gather to realize how ridiculously unlikely, or flat out impossible, it is, the idea that the whole universe is a freak accident.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Have you ever seen God? Have you ever touched God? Have you ever heard God? It seems like pretty standard evidence that there is no God, right? You have to see it to believe it. It's the logic that, at first glance, would bring someone to believe that there is no God in this universe, simply because they haven't experienced Him. But that kind of logic can also lead a person to believe that the earth is flat, because it is a first glance assumption, that being that you have never seen the curvature of the earth, and your sense of touch hasn't identified any curve whenever you're walking on the ground. Of course, just because you haven't seen or experienced the curvature of the earth doesn't mean it doesn't exist. External pieces of evidence show very clearly that the earth is a sphere. And so, we don't have to immediately conclude that God doesn't exist purely because we have never experienced Him with our senses. We must dig deeper, and ask ourselves one simple question: how did the universe begin?
The beginnings of the universe:
For thousands of years, our universe has had many mysteries. However, in the last few hundred years, advancements in science have given us a much better understanding of how our current universe works, where we began to understand the things that make up matter, as well as the laws of physics that govern the behavior of certain objects. And now that we understand the laws of physics extremely well, we can now apply this to coming up with theories as to how the universe began. If you are an atheist, and don't believe anything beyond the physical universe, then you believe in the theory of evolution. How do I know this? Because it's the only theory that tries to explain the universe without any kind of supernatural realm. And, when I say "the theory of evolution," I just mean the secular cosmological model of everything, and the secular explanation for the entire universe, not specifically biological evolution. If you have a better word for it, say the word.
So, of course, this theory is going to use purely the laws of physics to try to explain how the universe began. This explanation needs to explain absolutely everything, because if you believe that it actually happened, then it does explain everything. So, how can we use the laws of physics to determine the origin of the universe? Well, let's take a look at a problem with this called the secular dilemma, named by Spike Psarris.
"Ultimately, any origins model that denies a Creator has to violate physics in one way or another. You can’t logically and consistently affirm the laws of physics and the existence of the Universe. That’s because all secular origins models have to answer this question: Did the Universe have a beginning? There are only two possible answers to this: yes, or no. And it turns out that whichever way a (secular) model answers it, it has to violate physics somehow. If the model says “yes,” then it violates certain laws of physics. If the model says “no,” then it violates certain other laws of physics. The only origins model which can be consistent with all the laws of physics is one that affirms a supernatural Creator, who created the Universe and who determined the laws under which it operates. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the amount of usable energy in a system decreases over time. Therefore, energy always disperses and equalizes itself. Now let’s apply this law of physics to the Universe. If the Universe didn’t have a beginning, it would be infinitely old. And if it were infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have already passed. This means that there wouldn’t be any concentrations of energy left anymore in the Universe. It all would have dispersed and equalized, an infinitely long time ago. But when you look into the night sky, what do you see? A cosmos that’s full of very hot objects that we call stars, surrounded by vast expanses of very cold space. Obviously, everything in the Universe is not at the same temperature. Not even close."
So, now we know why the universe cannot be infinitely old, because entropy would have reached its maximum value an infinite amount of time ago. So, clearly, the universe is not infinitely old. This means that the universe must have have had a beginning. So, what is this beginning?
"First of all, we must clarify what “yes” actually means. If the Universe really had a beginning, then before it began, there was nothing. There was absolutely nothing: there was no matter, no energy, no space, no time… nothing. Problem: this means that when the Universe began, something came from nothing. And a law of physics forbids this. This fundamental law is often known as the Conservation of Mass-Energy. It says that the total amount of matter and energy that exists can never change. The relative amounts of each can shift back and forth, but the total combined amount is fixed and unchanging. This has many implications, but an obvious one is that the Universe’s matter and energy cannot have popped into existence from nothing. Since the Big Bang model requires exactly that—in other words, since the Big Bang model claims that roughly 14 billion years ago, the Universe and all of its contents popped into existence from nothing—we see that this law of physics contradicts the Big Bang model. In fact, it disproves any secular origins model that tries to claim that at some point, something came from nothing, without a Creator being involved. Any purely naturalistic model that tries to use the laws of nature to explain the Universe, winds up being disproven by those same laws. The only way out of this dilemma is a supernatural Creator. In other words, the only origins model that is consistent with all the laws of physics, is that the Universe was formed by a supernatural Creator who operated outside of them."
It appears to be physically impossible to explain the universe in any sort of naturalistic way, because the two different naturalistic explanations, of which if the universe was naturally created, one of them must be true, contradict these two laws of physics. This leaves us only one logical conclusion, and that is that there had to have been a creator that created the universe and the laws of physics, because in that case, we don't have to explain it with the laws of physics, because if we did, we'd end up in the secular dilemma.
Now, some people will say, "Just because we don't know, doesn't mean it's automatically false." This is a valid point. There are always things we don't know, but it doesn't mean they're not true. Just because we don't know how to explain something, doesn't mean it's false. But there's a difference between not knowing how to explain something, and knowing definitively why it is false. I haven't shown you that there must be a creator to the universe because we just don't know how to explain it naturally, I have shown you that there must be a creator to the universe because we DO know of a way to prove that it is impossible. There is a difference between not knowing how something happened, and knowing why it is impossible for it to have happened. And this is the second one.
The design of the universe:
But even more than that, our universe is intricately designed. Complicated mechanisms that are unique per species, which all accommodate for things that we could never have anticipated, in very clever ways, from the very beginning of our being. And you can't even make the argument of biological natural selection when you're talking about astronomy, because those are just giant rocks, because astronomy also has plenty of specific things that allow life to exist, like the very specific tilt of the earth allowing for the circulation of seasons, the specific distance the earth is from the sun, the specific intensity of the sun, the specific distance the moon is away from the earth, which in of itself, being just a giant rock, still serves plenty of purposes, and so on. Though you might be able to make the argument of biological natural selection, however unlikely, in the field of biology, you cannot make any sort of argument like that when you're talking about astronomy, because there's no natural selection when it comes to giant rocks. And yet, even just this giant rock that we call the moon serves multiple purposes, and also happens to be the exact size the sun is from our viewpoint. The sun is 400x larger than the moon, but the sun is 400x farther away from us than the moon. And when you're just talking about rocks in space, you cannot make the argument of natural selection.
The great expanse of the universe, the intricate designs of the things we see in it, the numerous kinds of Goldilocks zones we find ourselves in, all the ways a natural origin of the universe could have gone wrong and all the reasons those would be ridiculously unlikely, and the ways in which we can prove a natural origin of the universe is straight up physically impossible, all point towards a creator. It shows, even without needing to experience God with our physical senses, that there is nonetheless a creator to our universe. And as the Bible has said all along, the heavens declare the glory of God. Amen.
Con
#2
Thank you, Tickbeat.
Framework:
Creator: a deity responsible for the creation of the Earth, world, and universe
Universe: everything that exists, especially all physical matter in space:
Evidence: facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true.
Argument: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
The Burden of Proof is soley on PRO. He has to demonstrate that there are not only arguments, but also evidence, for the existence of a creator of the universe.
Affirmative case
God is by definition immaterial. That means we can never observe him or prove his existence with evidence. He is also what's called unfalsifiable, because disproving him is also impossible. Atheists and theists can argue for infinity but no side will ever be able to prove their case with evidence, it will always be a matter of faith and interpretation rather than cold hard evidence.
The design of the universe:
Circular reasoning
PRO argues that there is a designer because the universe is designed. This is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. The premise and conclusion of his argument are identical propositions. The phrase “is designed” literally means “has a designer”, and vice versa. So PRO’s argument doesn’t conclude that there is a designer based on independent premises, it already assumes it. Circular reasoning like this isn’t even a valid argument, and definitely cannot be called evidence.
Biology
PRO mentions that life is very complicated, but in the very next sentence he mentions evolution, which accurately explains how this complexity arose and why species have developed unique traits. Earth wasn’t fine-tuned to allow life, rather, life fine-tuned itself to Earth. We have mountains of evidence to support this model of biodiversity [ncbi].
Cosmology
Science has a robust understanding of how the solar system and the Earth and moon formed, that doesn’t include any fine-tuning or design process by a supernatural entity [nationalgeographic]. There are millions of planets which may be habitable to us just in the milky way [livescience]. Among these are many that are actually more habitable than Earth [space.com]. Furthermore, a mere light skim of wikipedia will yield a list of 17 types of nontraditional life forms that potentially exist [wiki]. So that the universe would have at least 1 planet where some form of life developing is actually very likely. And that is not even mentioning that there could potentially be orders of magnitudes more galaxies outside the observable universe than inside.
Probabilities are not evidence
PRO argues that any natural origin for the universe would be “ridiculously unlikely”. He has not demonstrated this to be true. But even if you could get an accurate probability it would still be a terrible argument. Dr. Ali Binazir calculated that “The probability of you existing at all comes out to 1 in 10 followed by 2,685,000 zeroes! Basically zero” [see calculation]. So according to PRO’s logic this is clear evidence that all of human history was fine-tuned to allow for you specifically to be born. This is obviously ridiculous, and it demonstrates how this type of reasoning is extremely flawed. When this exact breed of probability based argument was presented in court it famously led to mistrial and was sent to the supreme court where they tore the argument to shreds and ruled that such a sloppy probabilistic argument never constitutes evidence [harvard].
The universe is fine tuned for life
This argument is also an example of circular reasoning. Moreover, fine-tuning is defined as making small changes over time to optimize something. PRO has no evidence that there are previous iterations of the universe where life didn’t develop, or that a creator would want to optimize for life specifically. Plus, this creator guy must not be very good at his job if after "fine-tuning" the universe for life the chances are still astronomically low like PRO claimed.
How to prove the universe is designed?
PRO has no evidence that the universe has a designer. He has not described the process by which the universe was created, or explained why this process couldn’t have been driven by natural processes. Science has consistently found that everything inside the universe obeys the laws of physics, and can be explained by natural processes. So PRO is limited to arguing that the Big Bang has a designer, but that is impossible to verify and is actually just one more way to rewrite the resolution.
The universe looks designed/fine-tuned
That would be a more honest argument but that is still not evidence, but just subjective judgement.
Apologist lack scientific credibility
Craig v Carroll
Dr. Sean B. Carroll graduated from Harvard with a PhD in astronomy, and has a bachelor's degree in Astronomy, Astrophysics and Philosophy. He specializes in theoretical physics and cosmological philosophy, and he has written numerous high-quality dissertations and models and has won many awards for his work in these fields [wiki]. There was a live debate a few years back between him and the well-known apologist William Laine Craig. I watched the entire debate, but you can find the transcript here. What’s interesting is that Craig kept insisting that Dr. Carrolls own cosmological model violated the second law of thermodynamics, despite Dr. Carroll explaining to him in detail that this was not the case. Dr. Caroll didn’t even claim to have created the correct one, just that it was a model that explains the universe without invoking a creator or violating the laws of physics. And yet William Lane Craig, who is regarded as a military grade apologist, elected the wisest course of action was to stick to his obviously incorrect assertions and pretend like his pre-planned arguments made him a more credible authority on cosmology than the world-class expert.
PRO’s source is trash
His only source is literally called Creation Astronomy, and if you visit their frontpage you will be met with this text:
Psalms 19.1: The heavens declare the glory of GodThe Bible says that God created the Universe. Secular astronomers claim that the cosmos was formed in a Big Bang event. The Bible is consistent with the Universe. Secular claims are not.Books for sale: “What you aren’t being told about astronomy” Volume I, II and III
Creation Astronomy checks all the boxes:
- Believes that observable facts supports the Bible because the Bible says so
- Implies scientists are intentionally withholding important information
- Claims that science is wrong while the Bible is correct
All this while ignoring all the wacky stories in the Bible like the global flood and the sun standing still, which we haven’t found a single piece of evidence for. Also ignoring that biblical cosmology looks like this in stark contrast to scientifically accurate cosmology which looks like this. Also ignoring that the Bible has a self-contradictory and nonsensical account of how the world was created, where among other things all land animals were created simultaneously and none of them were carnivores. The Bible is full of stories and descriptions of the cosmos that run contrary to everything we know about the universe. But they don't have a problem with all this. They have a preconceived notion and are working backwards to support it so they can call it their "conclusion", and they are eager to cherry pick, twist, misinterpret, ignore or straight up deny different parts of science and the Bible just to get the result that they are looking for.
PRO'S MAIN ARGUMENT: "The only origins model which can be consistent with all the laws of physics is one that affirms a supernatural Creator"
Reputable scientists like Sean Carroll have been faced with this exact argument and have rejected it.
The phrase “popping into existence” is not the right one to use when you’re talking about the universe. It sounds as if it’s something that happens in time but that’s not the right way to do it. The correct thing to say is there was a first moment of time. When you say it that way it doesn't sound so implausible. The question is, is there a model in which that’s true? Do the equations of the model hang together? Does the model fit the data? And we have plausibly positive answers to all of those. [Dr. Sean Carroll, second round]
Plus the statement PRO copy-pasted is just a straight up lie. Theism does not even have a monopoly on the supernatural. There are an infinite number of different models that can explain the universe, and all of them become available if you remove the criteria that it has to conform to known laws of physics.
Here are just some examples:
- There could be no explanation. There is no reason to believe that every question can be answered.
- The explanation could be too complicated or too simple for it to make sense to us.
- There could be multiple creators and the universe is a group project
- Maybe we are simulated by a computer in another universe where the laws of physics allow it to pop into existence or to have always existed.
- Maybe there are impersonal supernatural forces that constantly generate new universes from nothing with random properties
- The universe could be cyclic. Maybe it will collapse magically after a set ammount of time and do another Big Bang with different energy configurations
- The universe could be constantly inflating since forever
- The explanation could become obvious once we develop a working theory of everything that ties together quantum mechanics and general relativity
There is no list of criteria or arguments that can be offered that will disprove every single one of the infinite number of possible non-theistic explanations for the universe. Another reason why the copy-pasted claim is a lie is that the supernatural creator literally violated all the laws of physics. PRO could counter that these laws did not exist until after the universe was created. Fine, but that same counter can be made to defend any model. Take the cosmic accident model. Just add the clause “the laws of physics only apply after the universe has already popped into existence” and bada bing bada boom, the model no longer violates any of the laws of physics. Maybe PRO will instead try to counter that if there is a God then the universe didn’t come from nothing. But that does not work either. God obviously did not convert himself into the universe, instead he converted nothing into something. So even if we assume the creator exists, the universe still came from nothing.
Occams-razor tells us the simplest of competing explanations for any given phenomena is likely the correct one. Simplicity is defined as containing the fewest possible elements while retaining explanatory power.
Which of these are simpler:
- The universe came from nothing
- God exists and the universe came from nothing
The first is obviously simpler. The universe exists today because it started to exist at some point. Had it been nonexistent at one point and then never started to exist, it would not have existed today. But theism adds a new element, the creator, without adding any explanatory power. Omnipotence does not explain how nothing turns into something, all it does is assert that there exists someone who can decide when it will happen. So this cosmological argument fails the occams razor test in spectacular fashion.
Conclusion:
PRO has not provided any evidence that there is a creator. All he has done is present two very flawed arguments filled to the brim with logical fallacies, bias and misunderstood science.
Round 2
Con
#4
PRO basically forfeited his round but it was an honest mistake not bad conduct. Do not count it against him in your votes. With that said, I will still utilize this round because I think this is an important topic and I am going to use all of my 50 000 alloted characters. I will simply highlight some of the best excerpts from Sean Carrolls debate with Laine Craig. When I first watched the debate I was still a believer who initially agreed with Craig, but after hearing Seans arguments I changed my mind and stoped using these types of arguments and ceased to claim that they were backed by science. Because I realized that scientists are not in some kind of conspiracy against God, they just have really good reasons to reject the weak arguments put forth by apologists. I did not want to base my theism on bogus arguments, nor did I want to defend God with bogus arguments, because I considered it disrespectfull.
I believe that most theists should be able to relate to this sentiment. So please read this with an open mind to understand how a secular scientist thinks and why they might think that way.
Naturalism says that all that exists is one world, the natural world, obeying laws of nature, which science can help us discover. Theism says that in addition to the natural world there is something else, at the very least, God. Perhaps there are other things as well. I want to argue that naturalism is far and away the winner when it comes to cosmological explanation. And it comes down to three points. First, naturalism works—it accounts for the data we see. Second, the evidence is against theism. Third, theism is not well defined. I’m going to be emphasizing this third point because if you ask a theist about the definition they will give you some very rigorous sounding definition of what they mean by God. The most perfect being, the ground for all existence, and so forth. There are thousands of such definitions, which is an issue, but the real problem is not with the definition, it’s when you connect the notion of God to the world we observe. That’s where apparently an infinite amount of flexibility comes in.So, I think I can make these points basically by following Dr. Craig’s organization starting with the kalam cosmological argument, and unlike what he said I should be doing I want to challenge the first of the premises: If the universe began to exist it has a transcendent cause. The problem with this premise is that it is false. There’s almost no explanation or justification given for this premise in Dr. Craig’s presentation. But there’s a bigger problem with it, which is that it is not even false. The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology. This kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago. Today we know better. Our metaphysics must follow our physics. That’s what the word metaphysics means. And in modern physics, you open a quantum field theory textbook or a general relativity textbook, you will not find the words “transcendent cause” anywhere. What you find are differential equations. This reflects the fact that the way physics is known to work these days is in terms of patterns, unbreakable rules, laws of nature. Given the world at one point in time we will tell you what happens next. There is no need for any extra metaphysical baggage, like transcendent causes, on top of that. It’s precisely the wrong way to think about how the fundamental reality works.The question you should be asking is, “What is the best model of the universe that science can come up with?” By a model I mean a formal mathematical system that purports to match on to what we observe. So if you want to know whether something is possible in cosmology or physics you ask, “Can I build a model?” Can I build a model where the universe had a beginning but did not have a cause? The answer is yes. It’s been done. Thirty years ago, very famously, Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle presented the no-boundary quantum cosmology model. The point about this model is not that it’s the right model, I don’t think that we’re anywhere near the right model yet. The point is that it’s completely self-contained. It is an entire history of the universe that does not rely on anything outside. It just is like that. The demand for more than a complete and consistent model that fits the data is a relic of a pre-scientific view of the world. Meanwhile, theism, I would argue, is not a serious cosmological model. A real cosmological model wants to predict. What is the amount of density perturbation in the universe? And so forth. Theism does not even try to do this because ultimately theism is not well defined.Dr. Craig brings up an argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and I’ve written a whole book about the second law and its relationship to cosmology. It is certainly a true issue that we don’t know why the early universe had a low entropy and entropy has ever been increasing. That’s a good challenge for cosmology. To imagine the cosmologist cannot answer that question without somehow invoking God is a classic god-of-the-gaps move.So let’s go to the second argument, the teleological argument from fine-tuning. I’m very happy to admit right off the bat – this is the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology. That’s because it plays by the rules. You have phenomena, you have parameters of particle physics and cosmology, and then you have two different models: theism and naturalism. And you want to compare which model is the best fit for the data. I applaud that general approach. Given that, it is still a terrible argument. It is not at all convincing. I will give you five quick reasons why theism does not offer a solution to the purported fine-tuning problemFirst, I am by no means convinced that there is a fine-tuning problem and, again, Dr. Craig offered no evidence for it. It is certainly true that if you change the parameters of nature our local conditions that we observe around us would change by a lot. I grant that quickly. I do not grant therefore life could not exist. I will start granting that once someone tells me the conditions under which life can exist. What is the definition of life, for example? If it’s just information processing, thinking or something like that, there’s a huge panoply of possibilities. They sound very “science fiction-y” but then again you’re the one who is changing the parameters of the universe. The results are going to sound like they come from a science fiction novel. Sadly, we just don’t know whether life could exist if the conditions of our universe were very different because we only see the universe that we see.Secondly, God doesn’t need to fine-tune anything. We talk about the parameters of physics and cosmology: the mass of the election, the strength of gravity. And we say if they weren’t the numbers that they were then life itself could not exist. That really underestimates God by a lot, which is surprising from theists, I think. In theism, life is not purely physical. It’s not purely a collection of atoms doing things like it is in naturalism. I would think that no matter what the atoms were doing God could still create life. God doesn’t care what the mass of the electron is. He can do what he wants. The only framework in which you can honestly say that the physical parameters of the universe must take on certain values in order for life to exist is naturalism.The third point is that the fine-tunings you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better. They might only be apparent. There’s a famous example theists like to give, or even cosmologists who haven’t thought about it enough, that the expansion rate of the early universe is tuned to within 1 part in 1060. That’s the naïve estimate, back of the envelope, pencil and paper you would do. But in this case you can do better. You can go into the equations of general relativity and there is a correct rigorous derivation of the probability. If you ask the same question using the correct equations you find that the probability is 1.Number four, there’s an obvious and easy naturalistic explanation in the form of the cosmological multiverse. People like to worry about the multiverse. It sounds extravagant. I claim the multiverse is amazingly simple. It is not a theory, it is a prediction of physical theories that are themselves quite elegant, small, and self-contained that create universes after universes. There’s no reason, no right that we have, to expect that the whole entire universe look like the conditions we have right now. But more importantly, if you take the multiverse as your starting point you can make predictions. We live in an ensemble and we should be able to predict the likelihoods that conditions around us take different forms. So in cosmology papers dealing with the multiverse you see graphs like this [slide image] that try to predict the density of dark matter given other conditions in the multiverse. You do not see graphs like this in the theological papers trying to give God credit for explaining the fine-tuning because theism is not well defined.Fifth, and most importantly, theism fails as an explanation. Even if you think the universe is finely-tuned and you don’t think that naturalism can solve it, theism certainly does not solve it. If you thought it did, if you played the game honestly, what you would say is, “Here is the universe that I expect to exist under theism. I will compare it to the data and see if it fits.” What kind of universe would we expect? I’ve claimed that over and over again the universe we would expect matches the predictions of naturalism not theism. So the amount of tuning, if you thought that the physical parameters of our universe were tuned in order to allow life to exist, you would expect enough tuning but not too much. Under naturalism, a physical mechanism could far over-tune by an incredibly large amount that has nothing to do with the existence of life and that is exactly what we observe. For example, the entropy of the early universe is much, much, much, much lower than it needs to be to allow for life. You would expect under theism that the particles and parameters of particle physics would be enough to allow life to exist and have some structure that was designed for some reason whereas under naturalism you’d expect them to be kind of random and a mess. Guess what? They are kind of random and a mess.Why should we expect that there are causes or explanations or a reason why in the universe in which we live? It’s because the physical world inside of which we’re embedded has two important features. There are unbreakable patterns, laws of physics—things don’t just happen, they obey the laws—and there is an arrow of time stretching from the past to the future. The entropy was lower in the past and increases towards the future. Therefore, when you find some event or state of affairs B today, we can very often trace it back in time to one or a couple of possible predecessor events that we therefore call the cause of that, which leads to B according to the laws of physics. But crucially, both of these features of the universe that allow us to speak the language of causes and effects are completely absent when we talk about the universe as a whole. We don’t think that our universe is part of a bigger ensemble that obeys laws. Even if it’s part of the multiverse, the multiverse is not part of a bigger ensemble that obeys laws. Therefore, nothing gives us the right to demand some kind of external cause. The idea that our intuitions about cause and effect that we get from the everyday experience of the world in this room should somehow be extended without modification to the fundamental nature of reality is fairly absurd.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Though God may be immaterial, he has chosen to affect the material, by creating it. This is why we can look at the material, and gather information about the immaterial because of that.
For example: if I can prove definitively, without a doubt, and everybody agrees, that the natural formation of something within our universe would have been truly, absolutely, and positively physically impossible, then there is no possible way you can explain it naturally, not just because we don't know how it's possible, but because we do know how it's impossible. This would mean that the supernatural would have to exist in order to explain this, because we know that explaining it naturally is definitively impossible. This is one way we can use the material world to conclude that a supernatural world exists, and that it caused whatever we need to explain. In such a scenario, this is actually proof that a supernatural world exists, because it is definitive that the laws of physics simply do not allow, in any way shape and form, the formation of such an object within the universe, and yet it exists anyway.
Now, in this example, it is a hypothetical scenario, though the secular dilemma comes close. However, you don't seem to agree with it. The very first option you listed is that there simply does not need to be an explanation for why or how we exist or began to exist in the way that we do. You seem to be implying that we don't need to really explain anything, and we can just blindly accept it. A lot of people say that about Christianity, but throughout this debate, I have provided plenty of reasons, it's not blind. The laws of physics are never broken within the bounds of this universe, ever. This means that everything that happens in this universe must explained using the laws of physics. You can't just say that the origin of something does not need an explanation. If it has an origin, and it began to exist, then it must have an explanation, because if it began to exist, there must have been a cause. This is different from God, who never began to exist. He never had an origin.
The second one you offered is that the true explanation is simply too complicated for us to understand. Now, I don't know how something could be too simple for us to understand, so I'm going to leave that one for you for now. That is true, the explanation could simply be too complicated. But you know what's too complicated for us to understand? God. Sure, we can know that God created the universe. But just how he did that is a mystery, because we are too, for lack of a better word, dumb, to understand.
The third option you proposed is that there could be multiple creators and that it is a group project. That is the notion that there exists a creator(s) to the universe, which is the exact premise of the debate in the first place.
The fourth one you proposed is that we could be in a computer simulation simulated by a universe in which the laws of physics allow for something to come from nothing, and for nothing to somehow do something even though it's literally nothing. But again, the premise of the debate states that there is evidence for a creator, which would technically include a simulation where that is the creator. Though I do not believe this, I do understand that a computer simulation qualifies as a creator.
The fifth option you proposed is that there exist the laws of physics, and then the supernatural laws of physics, that work in such a way that randomly generate infinite universes. Again, this implies a supernatural creator of some kind.
The sixth option you proposed is that the universe is cyclic, and it just collapses and expands and collapses and expands, where time basically becomes a loop. This idea does break the laws of physics if we're still here, and entropy increase, because if the universe were infinitely old, entropy would have hit its limits an infinite amount of time ago. However, if you're implying that different energy configurations are formed after each big bang, then that would break conservation of mass-energy, because it implies that you are somehow creating or destroying set amounts of energy, thus having different energy configurations. But if this is implying that time itself loops back to the beginning, in which those events have already happened but you are now revisiting that point in time, then you still must explain how the rest of the universe formed in the mean time. After you somehow get all of that matter, you now must explain how you go from the big bang with quark plasma, all the way to literal working human life, a good solar system, a good planet, etc.
The seventh option you proposed is that the universe could have been inflating since forever. Again, physics would not allow life to exist if this were true, because that would imply that the universe is infinitely old, and if that were the case, entropy would have reached its limits an infinite amount of time ago. Not to mention that this would imply that the universe is also infinitely big, because if it has been expanding for an infinite amount of time, it couldn't have had a beginning, meaning it has to be big enough for you to trace the time back, and no matter how far back you trace, the universe is merely smaller, not at a point.
And the eighth option you proposed is that maybe, once we complete the theory of everything, we will be able to know. Come back to me when we do.
In all of these scenarios, there can only ever be a creator, or not a creator.
The argument of design can be compared to a painting. If you were to look at a painting, how do you know there was a painter? Technically, you don't. Technically, those molecules could have fallen from the sky and accidentally arranged themselves into a painting. I obviously don't know the odds of that, but it's safe to say nobody in their right mind would consider it. So, while it is technically not proof, it is evidence of a creator, which is my original premise. You said the burden of proof is on me, but that's not true. The burden of evidence is on me, not proof. I don't need to prove that there exists some kind of creator to the universe, I merely have to give reason to believe in one, both scientifically, and logically. You used the word "evidence" as a placeholder for "proof," even though I never claimed to be able to prove there is a creator. And when you look at a painting, its mere existence is evidence of some kind of creator, because it is very complex and not just kind of plopped there. It's not just a blob that has conformed to the earth, something that has just hit the ground, it is upright on a stand designed for it, and its contents are fascinating and complex. This is evidence for some kind of painter, and you can therefore imply that it is likely there is a painter.
Nature is orders of magnitude more complex than a painting. The contents of the solar system, our bodies, our planet, etc., are set up as the stand is set up for the painting. Designed just for us. We can clearly see that.
As for your argument that a supernatural creator violates the laws of physics. Yes, that's the point. If it is definitively impossible to explain something by following the laws of physics, then you must violate those laws in order to explain it. And the only thing that is capable of violating the laws of physics is something that is outside of them. Something that is not confined to the laws of physics, because using the laws of physics can't seem to explain the universe naturally.
You told me that I have the burden of proof here, which we now know is actually the burden of evidence, as that is the title of the debate. But you, being against this premise as con, also have a burden, the burden of explanation. This might just be another way of saying burden of proof, but what I really mean by this is that by rejecting the idea of any kind of creator to this universe, you have to conclude that the physical universe is enough of an explanation to explain itself. So, the burden on you here is having to explain everything using just the laws of physics within the universe, because you reject the idea that anything beyond it created it, as you are con to "There is Evidence for a Creator to the Universe."
Also, did you know that depending on how zeroed in you are, the idea of God being more complex is actually more likely? You see, when something is simpler, there are less combinations to choose from. So, there is a lower number of simpler things than more complicated things. There are only 10 possible 1 digit numbers, but there are 100 possible 2 digit numbers, 1,000 possible 3 digit numbers, 10,000 possible 4 digit numbers, and so on. And so, if you were to pick a number completely at random, and the range included every positive integer, you are infinitely more likely to pick an unfathomably large number than you are to pick a small number. There are a finite number of numbers we can comprehend, but after you pass that, you will never stop counting up, therefore there are an infinite number of numbers we cannot comprehend. And this goes for God, too. The more complicated God is, the more possible versions of him there are. This means that picking a god completely at random would actually lead you to be infinitely more likely to pick an unimaginably complicated God. There are simply more options for infinite gods than there are much simpler gods. Not to mention, a god that created us would have to at least be exceptionally intelligent, because He managed to design us, as well as everything else within the universe, and comprehended it all, because He created it. So, not only is it more likely for God to be infinite, it is at the very least likely that God is more complex than we can imagine, because a being that is intelligent enough to design the universe and everything in it would be a being who's mind is too complex for us to comprehend with our limited minds.
I have 41 characters left.
Con
#6
Thank you, Tickbeat.
Framework
I never claimed to be able to prove there is a creator
the burden on you here is having to explain everything using just the laws of physics within the universe
- Incorrect. The burden of proof is on PRO, I just need to shut down his case. Absence of a good naturalistic explanation would not constititute evidence for a creator.
Here are three definitions I provided of major importance:
- Evidence: facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true.
- Argument: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
- Creator: a deity responsible for the creation of the Earth, world, and universe
PRO has not rejected even one of those definitions or provided his own, and it would not be good conduct to try to challenge definitions in round 4. That leads to the following problems:
- Arguments are not synonumous with evidence
- A Creator God is something way more specific than simply any supernatural cause
- Naturalism is not as limited as PRO claims
I will now go into detail for each of them.
1. Arguments are not synonumous with evidence
PRO had every opportunity to look at the definitions of evidence and arguments, notice their discrepancies and make an objection, but he didn't. So he has no leg to stand on when asserting that the two arguments he presented constitute evidence. A fact used to support an argument does not make the conclusion to that argument a fact. Let me give you an example:
P1. George Washington is a human that died.
P2. Dead humans turn into ghosts.
C. George Washington is a ghost.
Premise 1 is a fact. Premise 2 is not a fact, but an unfounded metaphysical assumption. The conclusion that George Washington is a ghost thus is not a fact, even if some of the premises are factual. This means the argument does not constitute evidence. PRO's arguments fall into this category. Even people that consider them compelling must acknowledge this. I'll show you why.
P1. Universe has x quality.
- Fact
P2. This quality makes the universe look designed.
- Subjective judgement
P3. What looks designed is designed.
- Nothing more than an intuition that does not even hold true for everything inside the universe, with no proven validity in regards to the universe itself.
C. The universe is designed.
- Not a fact.
The only way the fact universe has x quality can be used as evidence of a designer is if you introduce the premise everything with x quality has a designer. But such a premise cannot be introduced without sacrificing all intelectual honesty. You must either redefine the word designed to mean "anything with x quality" which is moving the goalpost, or you have to provide a complete list of all possible things and demonstrate that not a single one of the infinite number of non-designed things has x property, which is impossible. All the designed things only have one thing in common, having a designer. Unless you can prove the designer of y exists without arguing from the assumption that y is designed, you are just using circular reasoning.
So PRO has not provided any evidence, just arguments.
2. A Creator God is something way more specific than simply any supernatural cause
This should be self-explanatory. But PRO wants to shift the goalpost to the point where any supernatural causes for the universe can be called a creator. This is even more ridiculous when you realize that PRO defines supernatural not by that which is non-naturalistic, but as anything which merely appears to violate the current scientific models. So a complete theory of quantum gravity that allows for the universe to pop out from nothing is, according to him, supernatural, and therefore constitutes a creator.
3. Naturalism is not as limited as PRO claims
Say the multiverse or a cyclic universe actually violate the laws of physics that we observe in this universe. Does that mean the multiverse is supernatural? Absolutely not. Different aspects of natural reality are allowed to operate by different rules. For example, a simple natural law that just creates huge quantitites of matter from nothing is not the same as a deity.
Different causes response
PRO totally missed the point by trying to rebbut each individual item on my list. There is no way to disprove every one of the infinite number of potential non-theistic explanations.
If it is definitively impossible to explain something by following the laws of physics, then you must violate those laws in order to explain it.
Which is excactly what I did. I provided numerous models that explain the universe by violating the laws of physics. But PRO then proceeds to dismiss these explanations on the grounds that they violate the laws of physics -- the very thing PRO said was necesary and acceptable in an origins model. When cyclic universe and infinitely inflationary models violate the laws of physics that disproves them according to PRO. But when God violates the laws of physcis that is a good thing that strenghtens the argument. This is a blatant double standard.
No explanation
If it has an origin, and it began to exist, then it must have an explanation, because if it began to exist, there must have been a cause.
Again, this is literally just an unsubstantiated assumption rejected by reputable scientist and philosophers. "The idea that our intuitions about cause and effect that we get from the everyday experience of the world in this room should somehow be extended without modification to the fundamental nature of reality is fairly absurd. " [Dr. Sean Carroll]
Too simple or too complicated
The explanation can be to simple for PRO to accept. Maybe the universe just popped into existence for no reason. Or it popped into existence for very complicated non-theistic reasons.
Multiple creators
PRO says that multiple creators affirms the resolution, but he supports this claim by misquoting his own resolution as "a creator(s)". That is very dishonest, especially considering everything he wrote in R1 about the christian God and the Bible, and his only source being people that specifically defines "a creator" as abrahamic monotheism. PRO also ignores the fact that multiple deitys cannot simultaniously be omnipotent, and that their "creation" thus would be in a completely different category from the creatio ex nihilo that his arguments actually seek to establish.
Simulation
PRO asserts that a simulation would necesarily imply a creator which is not correct. First off, the computer would not actually be creating anything, just simulating it with materials that already exist. You wouldn't calle a video game developer a literal deity, that is just absurd. Secondly, the computer itself was created, and the coder was born, neither of them would be the cause of existence, just byproducts of it. Furthermore, if we are simulated then we do not actually live in reality, that title would fall upon the world in which the simulation is running, a world whose physics and origins we could never even begin to speculate about.
Multiverse
PRO claimed that the multiverse implies a creator of some kind. He did not explain what this meant or attempt to substantiate his assertion. This is yet another example of PRO attempting to massively shift the goalpost. As Dr. Carroll explained, the multiverse is an entirely self-contrained naturalistic origins model derrived from real physics rather than philosophical conjecture.
Future models will explain
PRO has no response to this argument. He says "Come back to me when we do [have better models]". But this is precisely backwards reasoning. PRO's entire case rellies on making broad claims about the fundamental nature of reality. Claims whose validity are completely undermined by the fact that science still has a long way to go. Again, Dr. Carroll explained in the excerpt from R2, rought estimates say the expansion rate of the early universe is tuned to within 1 part in 10^60, but once you go into the equations of general relativity there is a correct rigorous derivation of the probability, where the actuall correct probability is 100%. Furthermore, we have already discovered multiple scientific models to explain the universe that don't violate any laws of physics. Anyone who claims naturalism cannot explain the universe is either scientifically illiterate, a liar, or both.
Miscelanious rebtutals
we can look at the material, and gather information about the immaterial
- [Citation needed] There is no evidence that we can make accurate deductions about the immaterial based on the material. As demonstrated by wildly different views of the immaterial by everyone everywhere. If it was actually possible to gather information about the immaterial we would at least have consensus that it exists, but we don't. Reputable scientists are convinced there is no evidence that anything immaterial exists, not to mention the very specific concept of a creator deity.
Picking a god completely at random would actually lead you to be infinitely more likely to pick an unimaginably complicated God.
- Which has zero effect on this debate since PRO has not demonstrated that the fundamental reality is run like a lottery.
exceptionally intelligent, because He managed to design us
- All the evidence demonstrates that humans are not designed, but evolved. Plus the universe is a random mess where supposedly only one in a gazillion planets are habitable.
The argument of design can be compared to a painting.
- You could make that comparison if you are okay with lying. The painting analogy is ridiculous because it has nothing in common with the universe. We have very specific natural explanations for everything in our universe. To translate that into the painting analogy, it would be like if science had found billions of well-documented cases where paint falls from the sky and turns into beatifull paintings of different styles and quality. In that case the analogy would work but then the arguments falls apart in spectacular fashion.
- PRO is using terrible analogies like this instead of using the universe itself because he understands that nothing about the universe intuitively or intellectually indicates that it is designed.
Extensions:
- PRO drops all his supporting premises for the argument from design:
- That science has adequately explained biology and astrophysics
- That the chances of life occuring are very high
- That probablistic arguments are terrible and not valid as evidence
- That these arguments are examples of circular reasoning and subjective judgement
- PRO drops all his supporting premises for the argument from origins:
- That his source is trash with no scientific or theological credibility
- That they cherry pick from both science and the Bible to make them fit
- That they misconstrue science to fit their preconceived notion
- And that their claims run contrary to what reputable scientists say
- That the universe can have existed forever
- That the universe could also have instead had a beginning
- All without needing to invoke God or the supernatural.
- PRO drops that his arguments have been presented far better by Craig, and were still easily rebbutted by experts specializing in cosmological philosophy
- PRO drops that occams razor defeats his entire argument
- Since omnipotence does not explain HOW nothing turns into something
- But it does add unnecesary elements which PRO himself admit are incredibly complicated
I extend all of these arguments.
Conclusion:
PRO has no evidence that there is a creator. He had two flawed arguments, but now he has failed to defend them against damning rebbuttals that undermine them completely. Resolution fails.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I will note, I have been a member of this website for a month, and have only participated in six debates, some of which were just flukes because my opponent decided to not do anything, so I am not yet aware of all of the general things one must do in a debate, and might not be very skilled. In future debates, I will provide my own definitions for things to make sure that there is no ambiguity. With that being said, I will now clarify some things about what I constitute a creator to be.
An atheist believes that there is no supernatural creator. That does not mean they don't believe in any kind of supernatural world, it just means they don't believe in a supernatural creator. This would consequently mean that they believe there is a perfectly possible natural explanation for the origin and formation of the universe. Conversely, what I have been doing is trying to show the very real possibility that there is actually a supernatural creator, and I have been doing that by showing how impossible it is that the universe could have formed itself using only its own laws of physics. To truly know how something is physically impossible is different from simply not knowing something. But I should clarify that by supernatural creator, I just meant that the cause of the universe is supernatural, as it would be impossible otherwise. It's just that you cannot have something from nothing. But then when you try to fill in the "nothing" with itself, being the laws of physics, it appears to be impossible, as demonstrated by the conservation of mass-energy, and the second law of thermodynamics. This then leads to the only possible explanation, and that is that the origin of the universe is of supernatural origin. I do understand it's late to clarify this now, but in future debates I will try to get better at it.
This suggests that there exists at least some kind of supernatural cause, which was more of what I was intending to provide evidence for. It would state that a natural explanation for the origin of the universe simply does not suffice, and you must turn to a supernatural explanation. I don't know how many times I can clarify this fact any more, but if you know that it is definitively impossible for the universe to have any kind of natural origin, then the only place you can turn to is a supernatural origin. This is why it is actually relevant to use the natural world's inability to create itself as evidence for a supernatural world.
I will give quantum entanglement as an example. If we put a hydrogen atom in one completely sealed container, and a helium atom in another completely sealed container, and then we give them both the opportunity to switch containers any time they want for a period of time, they are said to be in a superposition. This means they are in all of their possible states at once, which means that the hydrogen atom can be thought of as in both containers, and same for the helium atom. But once you observe the particle, its superposition collapses, and it is observed as only one of its possible states, at random. The principle here is that even if you were to send one box to the moon, the edge of the galaxy, or even Andromeda, they are still linked. How? Well, the moment you observe the container you kept at home, its superposition will collapse into one of its possible states. And the two possible states were that there was either a hydrogen atom inside that container, or a helium atom. So, if we observe the container, and we find out that there is a hydrogen atom, we have now just collapsed the superposition of the atom inside the other container, because if it is now definite that there is a hydrogen atom within this container, then there must also be definite that there is now a helium atom in the other container. And it doesn't matter how far away they are, it is possible to collapse the superposition of one atom just by observing another atom as long as they are entangled by principle.
This shows that we can observe one thing, and therefore know the facts and details about another thing. This is obviously just an analogy, but it is an important one to make, because the fact that we can assume that the universe likely has a supernatural cause if we can show that the universe's natural formation is physically impossible seems to often be dismissed, so I am showing you why. And the reason I am showing you why is because this constitutes as evidence. The information about why conservation of mass-energy and the second law of thermodynamics together show that a natural origins model for the universe appears to be physically impossible is reason to believe that there is a supernatural cause to the universe. In, "facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true," the facts and information are conservation of mass-energy, and the second law of thermodynamics, showing that a natural origins model for the universe is impossible, and that therefore gives reason to believe that there is a supernatural cause to the universe, and there exists an immaterial world.
If you believe that conservation of mass-energy together with the second law of thermodynamics do not make a natural origins model impossible, please provide those reasons. If you can't, then it will show that a natural origins model for the universe is actually impossible, and this would therefore show that there exists a supernatural cause to the universe.
Con
#8
Thank you, Tickbeat.
I extend all arguments, because PRO has dropped every single one of them.
Response
An atheist believes that there is no supernatural creator. That does not mean they don't believe in any kind of supernatural world, it just means they don't believe in a supernatural creator.
- This is a concession that "supernatural world" and "supernatural creator" are not synonumous. Atheists can believe in supernatural causes that are not specifically a creator.
the facts and information are conservation of mass-energy, and the second law of thermodynamics
- Which do NOT prove that we need a supernatural model, as explained thoroughly by Dr. Sean Carroll.
- Plus you yourself conceeded that "creator" is just one of many types of supernatural models, so even if we needed SOME supernatural explanation, that doesn't have to be God.
If [energy conservation] and [entropy] do not make a natural origins model impossible, provide those reasons
- We already have models that explain the universe without violating these principles, which you would know if you read Dr. Carrolls explanation in my second round.
- Even ignoring this, there may be natural origins models that violate energy conservation and entropy because they follow more fundamental physics we have yet to discover.
- So even if the possibility of a natural origins model is impossible, it is an option that will eventually be ruled out by science later down the line, we cannot do so today.
The premise "we need a supernatural cause for the universe" is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination, so does not constitute evidence for the supernatural, and especially not God.
Conclusion
PRO has still not provided any evidence for a creator of the universe. He has apparently given up even trying to adress my arguments and rebbuttals. The resolution stands unsupported.
Round 5
Pro
#9
The person you sited who was debating against a creationist, he stated a fact I have been saying all along, that being that there is currently no feasible explanation to explain the universe when taking things like the second law of thermodynamics into account. He mentioned that it is one of the great mysteries of the universe, but saying that we must explain this using God is a classic God-of-the-gaps move.
Now, the thing is, if I were to say that we MUST explain it with God, that would imply that I have proof. Which, again, I never claimed to be able to definitively prove, without a doubt, completely, that God made the universe. But there is not no reason to believe God is real and that he created the universe.
However, what you claimed was that we already have an explanation, "which you would see if you read Dr. Carroll's explanation in round two." And yet, what he actually said if you look at it was, "It is certainly a true issue that we don’t know why the early universe had a low entropy and entropy has ever been increasing. That’s a good challenge for cosmology. To imagine the cosmologist cannot answer that question without somehow invoking God is a classic god-of-the-gaps move."
That doesn't sound like an explanation to me. He admits that it is not the case that we have a fully feasible explanation, but that it is a great challenge in cosmology. So, the principle still stands that the less likely one explanation is true, the more likely the other one is.
CON then went on to say that it's possible that the real explanation simply violates the currently discovered laws of physics because of something else we haven't discovered yet. But Dr. Carroll, of which you quoted, specifically pointed out that saying it was God is a classic God-of-the-gaps move. So by that construct, we wouldn't also want to start using (random-law-we-don't-know-of-that-explains-everything-because-that-won't-involve-God)-of-the-gaps, now do we?
Evidences that point not only to God, but specifically the Bible, are also apparent. For example, people ask, "If there was a global food, where did all the water go?" Well...you can just go to the ocean and look at it. It's still there. After the flood, the waters subsided, and dry land appeared. It's not that hard. Some people think a global food is a ridiculous idea. But some of those same people will claim there could have been a global flood on Mars.
Additionally, a man named Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of several planets in the solar system before we knew anything about them using exclusively the Christian creationist model. He asked the question, "If the earth was initially created as a sphere of water before God created land, what if every planet was made like that?" He also asked, "What if all the water molecules were perfectly aligned?" He did the calculations, and lined it up with earth's magnetic field, and then proceeded to predict the strength of the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. When they finally sent a space probe to Uranus, the atheist scientists had predicted that Uranus would have no magnetic field. But when they sent it, Humphreys was right, and the atheists were wrong.
Additionally, the fact that everything is not old, cold, and dead, and magnetic fields are not fully decayed yet, is evidence for a young earth, which lines up with the Christian model.
There is plenty of evidence that line up with the Bible, a creationist model. And atheists use evolution-of-the-gaps in addition, when they can just do things like say it happened over millions of years. People who accuse us of using God-of-the-gaps arguments need to stop using evolution-of-the-gaps arguments.
In conclusion: plenty of things line up with the Bible and the origins models it teaches, which is, of course, creationism. And hypocritical arguments are made sometimes, of which who are generally against creationism. The heavens declare the glory of God, and there are plenty of ways to defend the faith and provide reasons to our hope.
Con
#10
Neither I nor Dr. Carroll claimed that we have already discovered the correct origins model. That is an obvious straw man by PRO. What I said is that Dr. Carroll clearly refuted the claim "entropy + energy conservation means we need a supernatural origins modell" which is the false premise that PRO presents as evidence for God. But even if PRO was correct in claiming that we need a supernatural cause for the universe, which he isn't, that would still not constitute evidence for a creator deity specifically.
PRO goes on to make the ridiculous claim that the global flood occured, and that all the water is now in the ocean. Here are 21 reasons the flood never happened. An example:
The average thickness of sedimentary rocks around the world in the continents that were supposedly deposited by Noah’s flood is about 1,800 meters (5,905 feet) (Nelson 2012). If just 1 percent of this thickness represents fossil remains of marine animals that were alive at the same time during Noah’s flood, then the whole world would have been covered with 59 feet of living marine animals, such as clams, snails, corals, trilobites,and sponges. That many animals living at the same time during that 1 year would have been impossible. The value of 1 percent is not unreasonable when some limestone layers are composed of nearly 100 percent fossils. Even if 0.1 percent of the sedimentary rock thickness contained all marine animals that were alive at the same time in the year of Noah’s flood, that means that the whole world would have been covered with 5.9 feet of animals, and that still is too many animals.
Again, there are 20 other problems with the global flood of equal magnitude mentioned just in that one scientific paper. So yeah, there is absolutely no way the Earth had a global flood. At best God would have needed to create a copy on Earth, flood one of them and teleport Noah to the one that wasn't flooded. Because there is not a single piece of evidence for this global event which if it actually occured would have left billions of pieces of evidence. PRO then claims the Earth is young, and that it was originally a sphere of water. He claims there is plenty of evidence for all this, but he fails to provide even a single example. Plus, Biblical literalism and creationism clearly contradicts everything we know about the universe.
So PRO rejects science when it disproves the Bible. But then he wants his arguments for the Christian God to be based on science. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
The question you should be asking is, “What is the best model of the universe that science can come up with?” By a model I mean a formal mathematical system that purports to match on to what we observe. So if you want to know whether something is possible in cosmology or physics you ask, “Can I build a model?” Can I build a model where the universe had a beginning but did not have a cause? The answer is yes. It’s been done. Thirty years ago, very famously, Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle presented the no-boundary quantum cosmology model. The point about this model is not that it’s the right model, I don’t think that we’re anywhere near the right model yet. The point is that it’s completely self-contained. It is an entire history of the universe that does not rely on anything outside. It just is like that. The demand for more than a complete and consistent model that fits the data is a relic of a pre-scientific view of the world. [Dr. Carroll]
I extend all of my rebbuttals from R1 that PRO failed to adress, like how his arguments rely on circular reasoning, logical fallacies and unsubstantiated faith-based premises, not facts.
Conclusion
There is no evidence for a creator, just arguments and subjective judgement. Belief in a personal supernatural deity who created everything will always remain a matter of faith.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con argues that probabilities are not evidence and that any supernatural explanation could account for the universe, not just a creator. Overall, it seems like they're just putting a lot more research into their case, to the point of rebutting common cosmological arguments that Pro doesn't even formalize. I can follow some of what Pro is trying to say, but without clear premises, the cosmological argument cannot really stand. Con argues that probabilities do not make a creator more likely, and without Pro formalizing their case more or appealing to something like Bayesian probability, it's not even clear tabula rasa why Pro thinks probabilities are evidence. The closest Pro gets is the painting analogy, and if nothing else, this doesn't address the multiverse objection that Con brings up. Con also argues for Pro's sources being less reliable.
If nothing else, Con's organization makes their case easier to follow. (I won't punish Pro for legibility, though, since they didn't make any huge grammar mistakes.)
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
My opinion:
We can look at the material, and gather information about the immaterial: PRO brings this up. CON successfully disproves this.
Kalam cosmological argument: PRO brings this up. CON successfully disproves this.
Fine tuning argument: PRO brings this up. CON successfully disproves this.
Non-theist supernatural models exist: CON successfully proves this.
Naturalism can explain the start of the universe: I need to think about this one.
Occam's razor: CON brings this up. PRO successfully disproves this.
Painting analogy: PRO brings this up.
Conclusion: That debate could have been a lot shorter.
GG WP
GG.
That's fine.
Apologies, your argument did not appear for me, so I didn't think I had anything more to add, so I just put, "placeholder." Please respond as such so I can continue with my real argument, unless there is some kind of way to edit it.