A creator/creators probably exists

Definition of Creator/GodIf your intention is actually to discuss the existence of a creator, we should call it a creator rather than God. The reason being that God typically implies additional properties. You don’t seem to intend to debate these additional properties and you may unintentionally conflate what are usually two distinct concepts. Therefore if your chosen definition of “God” is “creator” we should simply say “creator”. I’m only suggesting this in order to avoid a potential problem for your side of the debate, because any additional properties added onto the definition of the creator you are arguing for reduces the probability of its existence. More formally: let us say that A is the set of all properties in the definition of a creator and B is an additional property to be added. Let’s call P(A) the probability of a creator with the properties in A (we should write P(C|A),but I’m using P(A) to simplify notation) and P(A&B) is the probability of a creator with the properties in A and the additional property (or set of properties) B. Then for any A /= B and B not in A, and if P(B) /= 0, then P(A&B) = P(A|B)P(A) ≤ P(A) with equality only if B is a proper subset of A [1]. To conclude, if you prefer to change the proposition to mean God instead of creator, I may accept that. However, I think you should have written the proposition to accurately reflect your intended debate topic, and I do urge you consider that this switch in terminology may actually make your BoP more difficult. Pro’s First Argument I will first attempt to summarize and clarify Pro’s argument. I found the argument to be somewhat disjointed, so please do not take this as an accurate portrayal of Pro’s argument without Pro’s explicit acceptance. This is only my best understand of Pro’s argument thus far. P1 – Any object is either created on purpose or by random events. P2 – The probability of any object being created on purpose is greater than its probability of being created by random events. P3 – The probability that an object was created on purpose is inversely related to its complexity. P4 – There is no proof for or against a creator, so we must guess. P5 – The universe exists, and life exists. P6 – Life is more likely to be created on purpose. C – Therefore the best guess is that we have purposes and God (creator) exists. In case I have misrepresented Pro’s argument, I will just address the key premises which were made more explicitly. Claim 1 – Any object is either created on purpose or by random events. We first need definitions for “random” and “purpose” in order to make this a precise claim. Since we are discussing probabilities, then we should use the appropriate corresponding definition of “random” in order to avoid equivocation fallacies and incoherence. Random: a sequence that contains no recognizable patterns, regularities, or predictability. We must also be careful to distinguish this from “random variable”: A random variable is a function defined on the sample space, where the value for each element in the sample space is between 0 and 1 inclusive, and the sum of all evaluations of the function over the sample space is 1. I will leave Pro to define “purpose”, as it is Pro’s desire to argue for the necessity of purpose in all non-random events, as opposed to other options which are currently considered viable, such as undirected determinism, constrained optimization, or stochastic sequences over random variables. To address the claim directly, this as a false dichotomy unless Pro can demonstrate that these are the only two possibilities. Until that time, this claim cannot effectively be used to show that a creator is more than 50% likely to exist, and the options listed above can be considered possible. It takes only one counter-example to disprove the claim that any object is either created purposefully or randomly. Most objects are created by stochastic processes which are not completely random (though they may include random elements. Here is one such example: the formation of rivers, which are somewhat stochastic but determined by the local variations in physical properties of land surrounding bodies of water. Given a model of a body of water and a surrounding land mass, one can simulate the expected channel formation (e.g. [5]). Claim 1 – Example Pro uses an example (which pro mistakenly calls a proof) to illustrate this first claim. In this example, Pro states that the simplest object he can imagine is a wooden stick with one end hardened by fire. He goes on to state that it is improbable that this stick could occur naturally. I think we could come up with a simpler example, given that this example involves a part of a living organism containing billions, if not trillions, of cells and several stages of modification in order to exist in the first place. Later In the example Pro adds that the stick is sharpened at one end. This does suggest the involvement of a human, since sharpening a stick usually requires a sharp tool. Now the question is, in what sense is a sharpened modified stick the simplest possible object one can imagine? Pro seems to imply by this example that no object in nature could have occurred naturally (ironically using an object that we know generally does not occur naturally). The example doesn’t require a creator of the universe, however, it requires a human. So is Pro arguing that humans created the universe? What about the stick itself, before it was sharpened by a human? Why was this simpler object not used as an example? Is pro willing and able to argue that a stick requires a creator and implies a creator of the universe? What about a rock? Water? Atoms? Photons? Claim 2 – More complicated objects more strongly imply a creator There are two problems with this claim. I have already mentioned the false dichotomy of design vs. random events (with “random” still undefined). The second problem is the assumption that complexity is the hallmark of design, when in fact, good design typically implies the minimum complexity required to perform a desired function (i.e. elegance). Therefore, simplicity is the hallmark of design. There are several methods of complexity currently in use. Most of these measures give a lower degree of complexity for man-made objects, compared to objects which we normally consider to be natural in origin. This is because complexity is the extent to which an object or system does not correspond to simple patterns, or any patterns [3]. In other words, measures of complexity are used as measures of ‘how random’ an object or system is [2,3]. This runs completely contrary to the assumptions made by Pro. The relationship between complexity and randomness can be seen clearly in two of the measures of complexity used for natural systems: Shannon entropy [3] and fractal dimensionality [4]. Claim 3 – Life is most likely purposefully created This is begging the question, but more importantly, no evidence or logic is provided to support this claim. it does not require refutation at this time, as no conclusion is supported through this assertion. Conclusion So far Pro has not provided any compelling reason to accept the conclusion that a creator exists. Nothing approaching logical or scientific rigor has been provided and the BoP has not yet been approached. I hope Pro uses my comments constructively for the next round. References: [1] John A. Rice. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Third Edition. (2007). Thomson Higher Education, Belmont, CA, USA. Pp. 16-18. [2] R Lopez-Ruiz, HL Mancini, X. Calbet. A Statistical Measure of Complexity. (2002). http://arxiv.org... [3] A Eke, P Herman BG Sanganshalli, F Hyder, P Mukli, Z Nagy. Pitfalls in fractal time series analysis: fMRI BOLD as an exemplary case. (2012). Frontiers in Physiology: 3(417). [4] N Olsen. Three-Dimensional CFD Modeling of Self-Forming Meandering Channel. (2003). Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 129(5).