Life coming into existence without god is Zero
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
I have been trying to explain this for years. And when i say years i mean years. But i found a video That explains it.
Rules
must watch this video 3 times. to get the grasp of what he is saying. Mind you i have thought this and have tryed to explain this but failed. He explains it perfectly yes
watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE
"The chances of life occurring Randomly. Is like if a tornado went into a junkyard and left an airplane."
"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.
- Math
- FSM
Statistical probabilities usually deal with the element of uncertainty, but when an event is already known it has an odds of 100% [1]. Flip a coin and record the outcome, now double check the recorded outcome and it will be the same, it will stay the same outcome no matter how many times you double check. It’s not a new 50/50 each time you check what the old result was.
- https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/10/q-what-is-the-probability-of-an-outcome-after-its-already-happened/
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PIDOOMA
- https://vimeo.com/31543194
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE&lc=Ugj6NrUCC3PUqXgCoAEC.8VgcHuNfOxk8W17K6VdX9y
The factuality of pro’s YouTube video has been renounced by its author repeatedly. If in doubt see highlighted comments [5]. Worse it has more errors in its apology for errors, causing them to outright insist they were never meant to be taken seriously, only intending to “imply” what they presented as undisputed facts.
That the author of the video could not make it a mere 30 seconds in without being wrong, says all we need to know about their credibilit
Intelligent Design (ID) from God would not lead to cancer and other ailments, whereas Unintelligent Design (UD) from the FSM would lead to flawed creations rife with defects.
Revelation 3:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.
Revelation 3:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.
Your arm span is equal to your height.
This is because god measured you out. So your arm span would be the same as your height.
This can be off some times. Old people shrink and we have a insane chemical diet. But a good 90 percent of the time this is true.
If i am 4 foot 9 tall then my arm span will be 4 foot 9. If i am 5 foot 11 then my arm span will be 5 foot 11. If i am 6.3 then my arm span is 6 foot 3. This can get off sometimes maybe i am 4 foot 7 and my arms span ends up at 4 foot 6. but i believe that he programmed these measurements in our DNA. I believe that he programmed that your arm span must equal your height. but sometimes that data is corrupted by a mutation and our genetic information in our DNA screws up. honestly i expected to see a cm off on most stuff. but all the symmetry numbers are all the exact same at least for me. which is amazing i had trouble finding even a cm off.
The average human arm span of a woman is 5 feet 4 inches while the average arm span of a man is 5 feet 9 inches. In typical humans, the arm span is equal to the height; therefore, the average arm span is also roughly the same as the average height, with males generally having longer arm spans than females.
"yes, your arm span is about the same as your height. If you hold your arms straight out from your sides, the distance from the fingertips of one hand to the fingertips of the other is about how tall you are. Some slight variations exist, though."
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution#It.27s_only_a_theory
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory
- https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/limb-length-discrepancy
- https://www.self.com/story/one-boob-bigger-than-the-other
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PIDOOMA
“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”Isaac Newton
Isaac then went to Trinity College at Cambridge University with the intention of becoming a Church of England minister.
Newton applied his binomial theorem to infinite series and from there developed calculus, a revolutionary new form of mathematics. For the first time it was possible to accurately calculate the area inside a shape with curved sides
"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates.
The Probability of Life. The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 80.
Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
by this logic there’s some thousands-to-one chance that God too is just another demon (if each god is a demon, then why would a random one from the Middle East be held to a higher standard?
Odds of Past Events Are Always 100%
Pro has now conceded that life came into existence in the past rather than the future (as he claimed last round). He makes a new argument that it was about 2000 years ago, created by Jesus. This is a direct concession of the debate as Jesus is not God, and no suggestion he is has been offered.
Evolution
Pro makes some off topic use of the didit fallacy [1], and a straw person claim that I’ve stated life was created by an explosion [2]. I’ve mentioned life came from the complex process of evolution (millions of years ago, slowly growing in complexity, etc.), which is way more likely than some Jewish guy 2000 years ago whose very existence depended on humans already existing (and humans depended on breathable air, preventing him from existing before plants to make that air...).
He then concedes again by linking us to a previous debate of mine, which is just evidence that God is a fictional being created by civilization [3] (I’m quite confused as to why he brought that into this).
2. FSM
God is Just a Demon
Pro has dropped that his own logic leads to this conclusion, which in turn removes God from consideration as having any impact on humans other than as a deceiver tricking people into thinking he created anything.
ID v. UD
Pro does some more straw person here [2], claiming that I claimed any death is proof against God, when I in fact pointed to the random schedules of our breakdown instead of a perfect one from a perfect creator. This leaves the proof that God did not create us uncontested, meaning we came into being through any other means.
Humans Are Computers
As for the idea that the human brain is some great computer... For this I will borrow a source from the previous debate pro linked us to, specifically the information within about Alan Turing, father of the computer [4]. With it in mind that we won WW2 in 1945 thanks to his computer, it is proven that computers are better at decoding than we are; otherwise there would be no need to use them for coding and decoding... By pro’s logic of scaling up, us building something smarter than ourselves would mean we in turn are smarter than anything which created us, and what is dumber than the FSM? The FSM is the supreme unintelligence!
Limb Length
Pro has entirely dropped that his argument here is disproven by Limb Length Discrepancy and asymmetrical breasts (which are actually more common than them being perfectly the same size) [5, 6]. Heck my heart takes up more space on the left side of my chest than my right.
Plus, pro agrees life changes through mutation (evolution). He also talks of Adam and Eve, who he’s already implicitly conceded could not exist as they are older than Jesus (whom apparently created life).
3. Refuting Video
Pro’s new arguments this round were pre-refuted under the math heading, plus it is refuted by his own source on it:
“If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case."Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry..."It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.” [7].
Sources:
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1227/civilization-was-inspired-by-and-created-by-god
- https://www.alternet.org/2012/08/8-atheist-and-agnostic-scientists-who-changed-world/
- https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/limb-length-discrepancy
- https://www.self.com/story/one-boob-bigger-than-the-other
- http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
Pro's argument that "Complex thing can not happen randomly" and therefore God exists because complex things exist is a logical fallacy known as the Watchmaker fallacy, which is something that this Youtuber debunks very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM
Con recognizes this fallacy and affirms that "pro would need to prove with 100% certainty that it was exclusively God and no other mythological being creating life anywhere."
Pro says "You do not know if it is a past event or not." then immediately contradicts himself by saying "yes the universe was created." The key word here is "was". That means that it happened sometime in the past. This could have been a few minutes ago or a few decades ago, but it was in the past.
Pro also commits another logical fallacy known as begging the claim, in which he states "it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life. Because that is a past event and i meet the burden of proof. That life coming without god is zero." His argument is basically that, Jesus created life, because... jesus created life.
Con exposes pro for these fallacies in the other rounds and pro has nothing to say about it.
So I give my vote to con.
This feels like pro is simply trolling.
Pro provides little more than a series of asserted arguments, with limited - if any logical arguments to pin it together. Pros points are basically arguing that life is complex, and life is structured in a way that provides useful function:
1.) life is complex
2.) ?????
3.) God.
Step 2 is the most important and appeared completely lacking.
Pros points are largely unstructured, difficult to read and beat no relation to the resolution presented.
Con provides a very simple case: for the resolution to be true; pro must rule out all other divine beings, using the FSM as a baseline example or causes of creation. This point basically undermines pros case, and gives him the burden of proof to show
While I have no doubt of pros personal convictions on this matter, pro offers little else other than his own incredulity about the existence of anything without God : which is no logical basis to form an opinion on.
Pro attempts to reject much of cons case by asserting demons - which appears pretty tied up with the premise he is trying to show in the first place.
Cons argument from unintelligent Design appears to clearly fit the facts better, with the examples con gave for limb length and animals getting ill.
Con also adds the possibility of evolution: broadly covering the process that produces life, which pro mostly replies with simple incredulity to dismiss.
This debate appears to be almost completely assertions by pro, who is unable to justify the conclusions; whilst con clearly introduces doubt into the possibility of something other than God creating everything by showing how other explanations better fit the facts.
On these grounds, the win goes to con.
Pro pushed the burden of proof and still couldn't make an argument for God. Pro's argument can also be summed as a special pleading fallacy or probability equals God. Even if we grant it is improbable for the universe to be causeless. Pro would have to demonstrate that it is more probable for it to be God. Pretty weird he shifted the burden for some reason. Another problem with Pro is that analogy are used in order for the reader to engage with an argument with a tailored context. It doesn't make your point correct but it can show if your opponent is inconsistent. Since Pro started you would have to show outside source of Con being inconsistent but you didn't. I pretty much summed up Pro's argument without the context. This clearly shows how lackluster Pro's argument is.
Con decided to show how probability actually works. Given that most of Pro's argument was on an incorrect assumption of what probability is Con did all that he needed to state how wrong Pro is. Con also used spaghetti to show there is no difference between an intelligent life and spaghetti. This argument wouldn't work if Pro was able to demonstrate God was intelligent but Pro couldn't which is why the argument was helpful in getting his point across.
Pro after this decided to explain what the Bible says while also adding in more points. This all is not helpful in demonstrating God created life. No amount of belief makes your point better. You need to demonstrate it as in show observable evidence of God doing something or something linking to God or even something logically deducing to God but Pro hasn't.
Con didn't really have much to say apart from regurgitate what he said in the earlier Round. So basically Pro failed to counter Con's point and Con was left stating what he said before.
Pro again decided to bring in more points that were pushing the burden to Con instead of proving God created life. Sure his rule did say Con will have the burden but I don't have to take into account your rules and moderators don't enforce it. He also did add a Bill Gate which doesn't actually support him since he isn't a scientist nor parroting from other scientists he quoted.
Con like the same in other Rounds said pretty much the same thing, modified with new information. Con also pointed out Pro does state Evolution is a fact.
So even though the rules stated Con has the burden to show God didn't create life the debate centered around Pro giving claims Con refuting it. Given that Con did a better job than Pro he wins as I have demonstrated it.
I think Pro should really attend English classes. It helped me with my argumentation as in point, evidence and explanation while also philosophy. In order to find arguments for your side while also presenting it well. Hopefully this leads you to seeing the other side and see how wrong you are but I think I have said enough.
Thank you both for voting.
Given that someone previously tried to votebomb in favor of RM (who did not participate in this debate...), would a person or two mind casting a safety vote?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: "Moar Sorces”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
Yup. My bad.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro's entire argument is a massive hot mess of strawman fallacies, arguments from authority, non sequiturs, and outright bullshit, crowned with the worst formatting I have seen in my life and absolutely terrible grammar. Pro said such "genius" statements like: "If past events are 100 percent. Then it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life", which is the most ridicolous non sequitur I have ever seen. I don't have time to write down all my reasons, so I'm just giving Con a win because Pro had god awful grammar and formating. Vote Con.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, as it does not go into enough specific detail on any of the arguments presented from either side, nor weight why the grammar was so sufficiently bad to outweigh the arguments.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
Counting unrated debates, oooooooooooh bad no no
If we don't count the draw.
Your win percentage is 44.44%
I am 5-4 in rated debates, how is that bad?
Doesn't understand I am 6th.
Cries in the debate comment section because is to much of a coward to debate me
Thinks forum posts will compensate his bad debate ratio.
It won't.
Lives on type1 debates
Cries when speedrace beats him at everything
also moved to forums, but ignores that
Has an abysmal debate record.
Can't to make it better.
Move to 1 sentence andy in the forums.
crybaby, who cried over the boat debate when I voted,haha
Crybaby
What Bullshit
Rag rag
Going to bag
Another win
Making his opponent dim
*LMAO*
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "CVB The Atheist
He did not evaluate Con's argument
He also did not back up his claims on spelling and grammer.Remove when neccasery
I ask other voters to counter wizofz too
Everybody deserves a chanch, even crossed
I guess RM was right all along,huh smh.”
Reason for Mod Action>Counter Vote Bombs are expressly prohibited on moderated debates. If you have issues with another vote, this should be dealt with by reporting the vote in question.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wizofoz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro simply made bare assertions, argued from the authority of religious texts, and at times simply ignored factual evidence give by con (such as thw scientific meaning of "Theory".
Con backed his arguments with logic and relevant references.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
If someone intentionally prevents you from reading their case, it's fair to vote on that. Besides, you got the gist of the debate quite well marked up in your vote.
Hard to have any true inaccuracies on one of these (when I accepted this debate I genuinely thought he'd attempt a new argument, rather than spam trolling the old tried and not true ones). I honestly suspect you read more of what pro wrote than I did.
Regarding spaghetti, it would be an intelligent creator (not just intelligent life, I assume this was a typo) and a bowl of pasta. The FSM is a useful bare minimum test for any absurd claim, if the claim makes more sense with the involvement of sentient omnipotent pasta (or the invisible pink unicorns... being invisible they lack color, but we have faith that they're pink anyway), it's probably just garbage.
Regarding BoP, I am pretty certain pro saw people saying the other person has it in debates, so tried to copy that without understanding what it means. Were he to have BoP (as the setup outright demands... but I'm willing to play), if he proved that life could not develop without God he would win no matter how much I ridicule him; by shifting it to me, if God not being involved has any chance greater than zero (even the absurdity of someone else like Jesus having done it, as pro conceded), I win no matter what the bible says about the appendix (I seriously did not read that argument from him in the debate, but I assume it's in there given pro's comment about it).
What do you think of my vote?
Was it accurate?
Sorry I did not mention your arguments, but you that would have taken me so much time. You win just on grammar, since Pro's formatting is absolutely terrible.
Thank you both for voting.
Crossed,
You hit a golf ball into a bunker. It hits a few grains of sand out of the trillions on earth. The chances of it hitting THOSE grains, rather than any others, is virtually nil.
So, God.
That's essentially your argument.
A great many events that may have had different outcomes led to the current state of the universe. A great many different outcomes may have occurred. But it is a 100% probability that SOME outcome would have happened, and any different outcome would have been just as unlikely as this one.
Unless you can show that the state we see around us is somehow less likely than any OTHER outcome, your argument is invalid.
Thanks for the vote. Unfortunately it falls a little below the standards for a couple reasons, so an admin will be removing it.
Also welcome to the site. I hope you have a lot of fun here.
i forgot the appendix source.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84937.php
Thanks for taking this debate up. I am saying the numbers are so high they can not occur
Thanks for changing up your debates. Since it's a new one from you, I'll debate you rather than waiting for the voting period. Hopefully I can correct your misunderstandings related to probability theory (or you correct mine), but either way we should be able to have a decent discussion.
And yes, I assume this debate is intended to be about probability theory, if I am mistaken please put the corrected debate resolution into the start of your R1.
Well to late. What i will do to prove my point is use NIL rule.
anything over 1/10 to the power of 50 is considered NIL
NIL means the number is so big that it will not occur.
Luckily the probability of life occurring by chance is a billion times bigger then that
yes yes yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5iAM38hHtE
Note, you might want to say very slim, if it's zero, then it's easily kritigued