Creationism vs. Atheism

I would like to begin by thanking PRO for his comments this round. This debate is indeed proving to be as enjoyable as I had hoped. I will leave it up to the voters to decide if leaving sources in the comments counts as sourcing your arguments; there is a character limit for a reason. I will begin by discussing the burden of proof, carry on with a discussion of fallacies, and close with a quick summary. Who Had a Burden? I would like to start out by saying that I have made no claim in this debate, nor have I accepted any burden of proof. PRO has expertly laid out the points that we agree on, so let me address the one where we part company. PRO has asserted that there can be no infinite regress. PRO has not demonstrated that this is so; it remains a bald assertion. As I mentioned in the previous round, I admit that induction SEEMS to suggest that an infinite regress is absurd. However, induction can be wrong [1]. Induction is the practice of inferring a general conclusion from a smaller sample of evidence [2]. For instance, if I go through my lifetime seeing millions of white swans, and no black swans, I might use inductive reasoning to conclude that all swans are white; I would be incorrect [3]. Similarly, we go through our lives on this planet where inductive reasoning seems to suggest that infinite regress cannot be. Our reasoning might be wrong in similar fashion. I would like to restate that I am not arguing for an infinite regress, I am simply stating that PRO has not met the burden of proof for his claim that an infinite regress cannot be. Fallacies PRO denies that he committed and Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. I will demonstrate how he did. In the first round, PRO introduces his concept of a “Creator.” Then, in the second round, he defined creationism to include creation by an “Omnipotent Creator.” In both of those rounds, PRO makes it clear that he is arguing that this Creator is a “G-d.” Now, if we accept all of the premises of PRO’s cosmological argument, we get to the point where there must be an uncaused cause. PRO is asserting that this cause is a God. Also, the use of capital beginnings to the words “God,” and “Creator” denote that we are using the terms as proper nouns. Therefore, even though PRO has not named the God for which he is arguing, he is clearly arguing for a deity with agency. Now, if we go back and accept the cosmological argument, we are left requiring an uncaused cause. Why does this need to be a God? Why can’t it be a natural phenomenon? Or more to my liking, why don’t we just say, “I don’t know?” PRO is using his cosmological argument to define into existence a hole, and then claiming, by fiat, that the only thing that can fit in that hole is a Creator God. That is the definition of an Argument from Incredulity [4]. PRO has also accused me of an Argument from Ignorance, which I admit puzzles me. I stated that we do not know anything before the Planck Epoch, a point which is supported by science (which I cited). However, PRO is claiming that this is a fallacy because we do know that there was a cause to the universe. Unfortunately for PRO, this cause is the very thing he is trying to prove, so in his accusation of my alleged Argument from Ignorance, he himself is committing the fallacy of Circular Reasoning [5]. Wrapping it Up This has been a most interesting debate, for that I thank PRO. Unfortunately, PRO has failed to meet his burden of proof. His claim remains a bald assertion. He has also claimed that I engaged in fallacious reasoning, but I have demonstrated how this incorrect thought is the result of PRO’s own fallacy. Overall, PRO’s claim that a God is the uncaused cause of the universe, has not been demonstrated. Sources: [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://wiki.lesswrong.com... [3] http://www.birdlife.org... [4] http://rationalwiki.org... [5] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...