Thanks YouFound_Lxam
Pro made 6 arguments in this debate to affirm the resolution. I will start by addressing each contention and then summarize why Pro's case fails to uphold the resolution.
1. The universe must have a cause
Pro begins by invoking the law of causality. As Pro's own source states "every single action in the universe produces a reaction no matter what". In other words, the law of causality is a law within our universe, yet Pro is applying it beyond the universe to conclude what caused it. Pro has no basis to apply this law as such, this is just made up.
The fact is that we have no scientific evidence regarding what if anything preceded the singularity because contrary to Pro's misrepresentation of what big bang cosmology asserts, the singularity is the furthest point which we can go back because the laws of physics themselves break down at this point [
1]. So if those laws break down at this point then Pro cannot claim he is following science when he asserts it must apply beyond it.
Pro then concludes that because the singularity does not behave naturally, the universe must have a supernatural creator. Pro here is just trying to smuggle in his argument through loaded language. First, the usage of the word “creator” implies some kind of intelligence which this argument makes no attempt to substantiate. Second, the very concept of the supernatural is a religious concoction. Science is about observations. The separation of that which follows the established laws of physics to that which does not in no way supports the notion of some realm existing on some higher level run by an intelligence. Pros conclusion is again, purely made up.
Most importantly however, if we set aside the individual issues with Pro's case here one thing becomes aparrent; Pro has made no attempt to explain how his explanation (God) escapes the very problems he is pointing out. Pro argues that 'something cannot come from nothing' while ignoring the fact that his proposed solution is in fact, a something. If the universe requires a creator then why not the God he proposes? How does invoking a God solve this problem?
Simply put, it doesn't. All Pro has accomplished is at best, to kick the can further down the road by invoking a God but this is an unnecessary assumption and thus, in accordance with Occam's razor, should logically be discarded.
2. Design demands a designer
Pro asserts as fact that the universe "looks designed". His contention fails at the most basic level because Pro failed to establish any criteria for how we tell whether something is designed in the first place.
To illustrate, let's look at the Palm islands in Dubia. A satellite view of these islands shows individual islands that are almost perfectly symmetrical to each other with straight coastlines and perfectly proportional spacing to human housing needs. They are clearly manmade, but how do we know this? Do we have some innate ability programmed by a God to recognize these traits as non natural? No. We know because we compare and contrast manmade objects with nature and learn to tell the difference.
No where in nature do any of these traits appear with any regularity. If they did, we would not have a basis to claim simply by looking at them that they are manmade.
Pro not only ignores this basic fact of human nature, he also fails to recognize what his argument here implies; if the universe and everything in it is designed then we no longer have any basis of comparison at all. There is nothing according to this argument that is not designed, so one cannot claim something looks designed because no one would have ever seen what non-design looks like.
Pros watchmaker analogy misrepresents the reality of how things came about. No one is claiming galaxies were spit out in tact by the big bang, they took billions of years to form and life billions of years after that. This analogy is also a sharpshooter fallacy; if you begin with a preconceived outcome and it defies the odds and comes to pass, that can be remarkable. But we're already here looking backward, so the odds of us getting here is irrelevant because we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place if this version of the universe wasn't the one which came to fruition.
3. Life demands a supernatural life-giver
Pro's case on this point is essentially that life from non life is scientifically impossible, therefore a supernatural force must have created it.
This is a text book example of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Pro is essentially arguing that we have no explanation for how life first arose, therefore we have an explanation. This is an obvious logical contradiction.
Moreover, things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for something else, so Pro cannot rely on a supernatural being as the likely explanation until he has shown that such a being exists in the first place.
Pro here cites "the law of biogenesis" implying that this is accepted as scientific fact. I could find no evidence that the scientific community accepts this as an absolute and I suspect for good reason, because the notion Pro is trying to advance here is the antithesis of science.
We already know that life did in fact arise in a universe that previously did not have life, therefore the only question is how. If it were scientifically concluded to be impossible according to the laws of the universe then the law of exuded middle necessitates it occurred outside those laws. This would be a conclusion made by science which could not possibly be supported by science because science does not deal with theoretical forces interacting with the universe that are not subject to the laws of physics.
Lastly, while we may not know how it happened, we do in fact have an idea. Pro's source addressing the Miller Urey experiments are not the refutation he seems to think. The key finding of the Miller-Urey experiments is that amino acids - the "building blocks of life" - can in fact arise from non living matter. The fact that a trap had to be built in order to sustain them is not relevant to that finding. Pro's source refutes the assertion that life on earth formed under the conditions Miller and Urey attempted to recreate, but that's not a necessary condition of abiogenesis. We simply have no knowledge of what the conditions were when the first life on earth were formed, or even where they were formed.
4. Moral law, demands a moral lawgiver
Pro asserts that "if" some things are objectively right or wrong there must be a God. There is no such thing however as "objectively right" in any moral sense. Morality is a human construct, making it necessarily subjective therefore this does not apply. Pro has made no real attempt to flush out anything further, so there is nothing left for be to address.
5. Free will exists
Pro asserts that if you are reading this of your own volition, "free will" exists. As far as I can tell, his case is that what he describes as "electrons bouncing around" in our brains couldn't result in decision making, but he makes no attempt to explain why not nor does he provide any evidence for an alternative explanation. His argument is essentially 'what we observe occurring can't occur, therefore it's the product of the supernatural'. This isn't a serious argument demanding a thorough response.
6. Human Reasoning
Pro raises the question; "From where does reason arise?". However much like the previous point, he makes no attempt to answer it. He claims atheists have no explanation and states that Anthony Flew says he followed the evidence to theism. But 'Anthony Flew said so' is not an argument, nor is 'atheists have no answer'. Pro has again failed to offer anything demanding a response.
Summary
The common theme through all of Pro's contentions is that they are all built on an argument from ignorance fallacy. Pro doesn't establish that a God created the universe, he just doesn't see how else the universe could have gotten here. He doesn't establish that a God designed the universe, he just doesn't see how it could look like this without one.
Each of these arguments relies on the same faulty logic I described in point 3; things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for something else. Pro's entire case is to find things that don't have an explanation, and then invoke a theoretical God as the solution. But the only evidence he provides for this God is our own lack of explanations for how the things he is pointing to came about. A lack of an explanation is not an explanation.
In addition and also explained in point 3, none of the problems he raises are solved by a God. He points to our remarkable ability to reason and claims that can't be explained without a God, but a God would have to have this same ability, so what explains that? No answer provided. He claims the universe is too complex to have come about without a creator, but any God would have to be just as complex. Who created that? No answer provided.
Substantiating that a God is more likely than not requires a logically valid contention leading in that direction. Pro has provided nothing in this debate which qualifies leaving us to take at minimum, a neutral position.
The resolution stands negated.
God israel
.
YouFound_Lxam, that wants to be "Bible Dumber" than Miss Tradesecret,
PLEASE, do yourself a favor and this forum as well, and tell the moderators to shut down your thread shown in this following link where you said: "God exists, and I can prove it:" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it
You have to shut down your thread above because you were easily made the Bible fool on your said topic, and then to add more insult to your injury at this point, you CONCEDED that you can't even prove; "God most likely exists" in your pathetic debate as shown in your round 2! LOL!
ENOUGH of your "what you think you know" about the Bible, and blatantly don't!
.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "YOUFOUND_LXAM" THAT FINALLY ACCEPTS THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT BY FINALLY CONCEDING HIS DEBATE OF "GOD MOST LIKELY EXISTS" TO PROVE THIS FACT, WILL BE ... ?
.
How is probability measured here?
Always
You mad that I’m cheating on you?
.
YouFound_Lxam, who wants to be more "Bible Dumber" than Miss Tradesecret,
Just look in how you acquiesced in your two threads below, where the first one you were absolute that Jesus, as God, existed. Then in your debate thread you now say that Jesus as God "Likely Exists" which implies that you are not sure! How pathetic can you get, even as you being a pseudo-christian, where don't think that Jesus isn't watching you back-pedal on His existence! (Hebrews 4:13). You're a joke to this prestigious religion forum AND to Christianity as well!
God exists, and I Can Prove It.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271-god-exists-and-i-can-prove-it
God Most Likely Exists
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3993-god-most-likely-exists
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "YOUFOUND_LXAM" THAT IS NOT REALLY SURE THAT JESUS AS GOD EXISTS AND STILL WANTS TO BE ERRONEOUSLY CALLED A CHRISTIAN, WILL BE ... ?
.
.
YouFound_Lxam, who wants to be more "Bible Dumber" than Miss Tradesecret,
YOUR WANTING QUOTES ONCE AGAIN: "A civilized one Brother D. Not just spewing facts about random crap."
Listen up Bible fool, Jesus and I OWN your Bible stupidity in both of your pathetic threads, as shown! Get used to it!
NEXT?
.
"Heads up, we are DEBATING in your threads, get it? Huh? LOL!"
A civilized one Brother D.
Not just spewing facts about random crap.
A Double_R debate that isn’t against me
.
Double_R
YOUR HONEST QUOTE TO THE BIBLE FOOL YOUFOUND_LXAM: "I am confused though, you decided to respond to some of my arguments and then conceded at the end, so you're giving up? And if so, why?"
As I stated, "Youfound_lxam" gave up at the onset when his title for the debate was; "God most likely exists" which is NOT an absolute as the Bible states with specificity that Jesus, as the serial killer God, truly exists!
As we all realize, YouFound_Lxam has the reading comprehension of a dead flattened crow on a Texas backroad. :(
.
.
YouFound_Lxam,
YOUR QUOTE OF LYING ONCE AGAIN!: "It's hilarious how you feel so passionate about religion, yet you refuse to accept debates from anyone."
No Bible fool, it is hilarious that I Bible Slapped you Silly®️ in your 2 inane threads of yours, where you had to retreat and run away from me making you the Bible fool when you used your little boy excuse herewith: "Brother D. is a troll, and that is why I have decided to stop replying to him."remember LIAR?
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8377/post-links/363322
Heads up, we are DEBATING in your threads, get it? Huh? LOL!
.
The negation of "God most likely exists" is not "God most likely doesn't exist". It's "God does not likely exist". It's not that I misinterpreted the debate, it's that you failed to understand the burden of proof.
I am confused though, you decided to respond to some of my arguments and then conceded at the end, so you're giving up? And if so, why? Even if I did not take the position you intended, do you not believe you can substantiate yours? That's quite an admission if so.
"Because most of his rebuttals were based off of him trying to disprove my arguments."
Do you then except that your arguments are disproved and that they are wrong?
Because most of his rebuttals were based off of him trying to disprove my arguments. He in no way provided an argument for why God most likely doesn't exist. He misinterpreted the debate.
Before his death at the age of 76 on March 14, 2018, Stephen Hawking was generally considered one of the smartest people on Earth. He was a world-famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist who received many honors for his work in the field of cosmology, quantum physics, black holes, and the nature of spacetime.
So, when Hawking said that God didn't exist and added the sentence "I am an atheist” to that statement, the world took notice.
Why did you not refute the rebuttals of Double_R?
It's hilarious how you feel so passionate about religion, yet you refuse to accept debates from anyone.
.
YouFound_Lxam, who is easily trying to be bible dumber than Miss Tradesecret,
OMG, YOUR QUOTE LEAVING YOURSELF WIDE OPEN IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS!: "I shall prove my case using 6 proofs for why God probably exists:"
You say "probably" God exists, which is NOT an absolute to your argument to begin with, where you have already LOST! ? LOL!
Furthermore, show respect and specifically state that "Jesus exists as God" (1 Timothy 2:5), and not just using his "title" God, understood?
It is totally amazing that you want to be bloodied up again in taking this debate where you were embarrassingly shown in your thread upon this same topic, where you were made the outright Bible fool!
.
So essentially, Double_R thinks like Einstein and Hawking and YF_L thinks like Jim Bakker.
Yes, God created the world. Thats why the world is so great and nobody is in pain. What a great God. And God was not created. He always existed for all infinity, but the universe could not have existed for all infinity because infinity is impossible. But its possible with God who somehow posseses ability to turn infinite into finite which is most certainly possible and its not a made up unexplainable nonsense that I use to troll atheists and I most certainly can explain how God got power to turn infinite into finite.
I'd be willing to debate the existence of God with you. But my argument is completely different from what PRO did here, so idk whether you'd want to or not.
If you are looking for someone to debate philosophical models of God's existence, then Lxam would probably be better. But if you're looking to debate the existence of God in general, then I'm down. I think God's existence is the only logical conclusion there is.
We can do it while we also do the chemotherapy debate.
Indeed - a well-explained and backed-up Kalam Cosmological Argument would have been far more effective. In particular, the last three contentions of PRO are on the weaker side.
Bro, don't do 6 arguments poorly. Do one argument well.
Would you be willing to do a parallel 2-week debate on the same topic with me? I'm pretty busy right now, but I'd like to branch out to doing some religion/philosophy debates like this one.