God Does Exist

[Shifting the Burden] It is not my job to show how the cosmos began. Pro can use the cosmos as an argument in his favor about the existence of God, and in turn I must argue against his contention. He asked how the cosmos could have began and created itself, and I responded with several arguments including the Big Bang possibly evolving from a white hole; the universe simply have always being (if non-existence is unable to logically occur - especially in the sense that the laws could have always been to be the only logical existence for motion of energy); laws from other dimensions that we have no absolute knowledge of having to do with the creation of the universe in this dimension (it has been proven scientifically that other dimensions exist, so this is not far-fetched); etc. These are all scientific possibilities of how the cosmos could have come to be, though I have no proof that any of them are true. Similarly, Pro's cop-out of naming God as the cause (simply because we are thus far ignorant, the way people in old times were ignorant about certain things until science caught up to their ideas) is unproven. So what we have here are varying theories, both of which lack empirical data (I'd argue that mine are probably more logical). Thus the voters *at best* should award this contention as a TIE; the cosmos neither prove or disprove the existence of God. [Red Herring] I've explained that just because Pro introduced the creation of the cosmos as an argument for his assertion that a deity exists doesn't mean that I have to debate solely about the cosmos. So far I have established that his contention regarding the creation of the universe is insufficient in proving anything. Pro has not proved that there is scientific evidence against any of my theories. [Base Rate] My opponent has cited how abiogenesis is highly unlikely. He provided a ridiculous misguided calculation to start off with; the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random (which explains why his calculations are already incorrect). Additionally, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler - not even a protobacteria or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont and Woese calls a progenote) - but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself. In other words, abiogenesis is actually supported by a LOT of scientific evidence; the so-called statistics against it are entirely false [1]. [Bare Assertion] I asked why I should accept that "creator of the Cosmos" be included in the definition of a deity when Pro has not even proven that this is so. Pro wrote, "What Con is saying is that I need to prove that a Deity created the cosmos in order for us to agree on the definition of a Deity…so that we can debate on whether or not a Deity DID create the cosmos? " Well, yes! If you're trying to PROVE that a deity created the cosmos, why the hell would I agree to a definition that states a deity DID create the cosmos? ! I'm trying to argue that a deity DIDN'T! [Argumentum ad Populum] Pro writes, "I never did state that the existence of a Deity is proven by popular opinion. Please show me where I stated that, or something even close to that. " Well, okay, how about this: "Much of humanity claims that a deity exists, and for good reason: much of humanity can see that nature is far too complex to have been the result of an "accident. " In other words, Pro said that most people believe a deity exists (and we should accept this popular opinion) because most people believe that a deity created the cosmos. So, um. Honestly, between this argument and the last (bare assertion fallacy), my opponent's arguments seem - and I'm sorry if this is not PC - utterly retarded. [Additional Arguments / Fallacies] * Pro continues to confuse me when he claims, "I am arguing that a Deity, existing in a higher reality, created the cosmos. How, exactly, am I arguing FOR Anthropocentrism? " I never said that he was arguing for Anthropocentrism. I said that he didn't respond to MY argument regarding Anthropocentrism. He was supposed to argue against it (which he didn't). * Concerning the modus tollens content, I may have poorly argued against his logic claim (due to time limits) so let me try to make it more simple: Pro says "Someone created the cosmos" as his X statement, and then says "Therefore someone did not originate from it" as his Y statement. The main problem in terms of this debate is that X hasn't even been proven true, and you need true arguments to provide a true conclusion. Regarding the actual logic formula, Pro has it all wrong. The modus tollens logic implies If P then Q (or if X then Y). So X would have to be: 1. If someone created the cosmos, someone did not originate from it. 2. No one originated from the cosmos. . : Therefore, someone created the cosmos. This is a simple logic formula which can be elaborated on here [2]. The point is that Pro's entire formula (let alone premises) is/are wrong. This is a misuse of logic indeed. * I've explained that Pro's virtual reality analogy does not work for the purpose of his argument, therefore it is insufficient and should be excluded. Pro attempts another red herring when he writes, "So, by your logic, all analogies are illogical? Please give another reason for it being an illogical analogy. " The only reason I must provide of why it doesn't work, I already have: Because video game users/creators are in the same reality as the video game (subject to the same laws of nature), whereas my point was that the cause for the universe creation may have been from another reality where they are subject to different laws of nature. * Regarding entropy, what I said was, "It does not prove that matter is not eternal. All it does is discuss how matter behaves when it is isolated. .. so what exactly are you trying to say? " Pro did not respond. Instead, he provided a dictionary definition of entropy, which includes the notion of a doctrine of inevitable decline and degeneration, and tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature. Neither of these things (nor any part of the definition) prove Pro's point either way. I never argued that energy wouldn't wear down at some point. [Conclusion] Note that Pro's "probability statistics" and logic in general are entirely false/flawed. His consistent use of fallacious arguments in this debate have been innumerable (though I've pointed out at least a dozen). His factual evidence is biased and unsupported (see: argument on ambiogenesis) and his insistence on shifting the burden via red herring arguments about the cosmos is annoying, at best. The bottom line is that this debate is about the existence of God and whether or not Pro has affirmed the existence of a deity. I have already responded to his questions about the universe, and provided scientific data confirming the probability of ambiogenesis verses creation. I have thus successfully negated the resolution by providing a cohesive counter to every one of Pro's meager points. [Sources] [1] . http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...