CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Man needs creator because is complex, God is more complex but doesn't need creator
It should be simple for you to explain how God automatically achieved infinite wisdom and power at the beginning of time out of literally no where. If it's hard for you to believe that human life could evolve from simpler life forms it should be incredulously hard for you to believe that the most complex possible life form that could possibly exist could just spawn out of nothing. What sounds more likely to you? Infinite complexity and the highest level of consciousness spawning out of the ether? Or a gradual process leading to higher complexity? If God doesn't need a creator than neither do we, God is much more complex than a human, if you believe something that advanced can just materialize out of nothing then why not something more basic? You know what, I think I just discovered the ultimate hypothesis, the "Extremely complex shit popping out of nothing" hypothesis.
In your assessment, an uncaused physical universe would be harder to explain than a creator from a reality with different or no laws of time like ours.
But, your fundamental logic flaw is, the universe isn't what caused the big bang. Your variable would have to be much more different than simply saying 'the universe'. You need to stop thinking you know more about it than Fred Hoyle and come to his same conclusion.
Supporting Evidence:
Fred Hoyle
(en.m.wikipedia.org)
In your assessment, an uncaused physical universe would be harder to explain
easier.
the universe isn't what caused the big bang
a multiverse or some other process of creating universes without an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, all-good being that intentionally creates universes is still a simpler, more likely answer.
a multiverse or some other process of creating universes without an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, all-good being that intentionally creates universes is still a simpler, more likely answer
A multiverse still needs a cause. It's also completely theoretical. Retreating further into the regress doesn't magically eliminate the regress.
If you can blindly accept theory as fact, here's you a very simple theory. A designer created it from outside our reality just like a programmer creates simulations from outside said simulation. Easy logic. Easy as pie. I came up with it in 5 seconds. That's how simple it was. Any theoretical answer you can dream up will take a bit of time to explain.
Simulation theory is another possible example of a method of creating the universe with something less than God. The programmer(s) might be willing/able to manipulate our universe and might not, might know/care about humans, might not - and there is no reason to think they are omnibenevolent. There are lots of ways the universe could be created by something less than God, and there is no evidence for God, therefore it is more likely one of the other methods.
Not a stipulated fact. It might be that our universe itself is eternal, and even if it isn't, that does not preclude a multiverse, etc. from being eternal.
I never said God was or wasn't eternal.
The debate poster does: "If God doesn't need a creator than neither do we"
while stating that an 'eternal god' is nonsensical.
It is not the eternal part of eternal god that I take any issue with.
If God created the concepts of time and being eternal, we have no way to fathom what that would then imply.
If God created the concepts of time and being eternal, we have no way to fathom what that would then imply.
same as with not god
Not really. God would be an answer from beyond our reality. Not God would have to do uts work within the confines of this reality. Not god would have no reasoning ability to purposefully manifest time from no time.
Simulation theory is another possible example of a method of creating the universe with something less than God
The only quality one must have to be God is creator of our reality. A programmer per say, of a simulation, and us being that simulation, would be god, per those terms.
The programmer(s) might be willing/able to manipulate our universe and might not, might know/care about humans, might not - and there is no reason to think they are omnibenevolent
And? They'd still be God.
And seeing that civilizations create simulations, and simulations can create simulations, and infinitely, there's almost no chance that you aren't in one.
If God must be all-powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, human-loving, etc. (all of which may not apply to the programmers) - then the programmers would not qualify.
If god is just whatever created the universe - this is no longer a god worthy of worship.
Ask TzarPepe what the definition is, and NowASaint what it is, etc. I tend to go by the generally accepted definition unless a debate specifies otherwise.
Reducing God to whatever created our reality, even if that is not supernatural, leaves you with a useless god not worthy of worship.
Maybe that isn't an issue to you - I think it might be an issue for others.
No, it means beyond that which is natural - there are likely many natural yet not currently known/explainable things.
Partially true. You and I know that a person from 1705 would call a tv remote and its abilities with a tv "supernatural". But it wouldn't be magic. Supernatural would simply imply a power or event that is beyond our reality or knowledge to explain.
If god is just whatever created the universe - this is no longer a god worthy of worship
Whether it deserves anything or not is irrelevant to its existance. Hitler was not "worthy of worship", but there he was. I don't deny he existed.
You are assuming a god must have certain attributes to exist. He might have them, he might not. He'd still be the creator, and to oppose him would be suicide.
You have never produced evidence of any kind you lying, delusional fuckwit. The closest you have ever come to producing "evidence" about any topic is posting links to extremist right wing blogs, private Facebook groups and fake news websites which are on the MediaBiasFactCheck watchlist.
God, you're so incredibly ignorant. You do not get to "giggle" at other people's ideas when your own is that the universe was invented by a giant bearded wizard.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God, and it is absurd to think that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality needs to develop or advance any further. In fact, there is no advancement left to do at that point. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality cannot be created by something, that is patently ridiculous on grasping the identity of God.
God has no beginning, it wouldn't make sense for God to have a beginning. It doesn't make sense for God to have an end either.
See, the God deniers take these attributes as being arbitrary rather than what naturally follows from understanding that God is "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality".
From that point on, it should be clear that another thing that is intrinsic to God is that our thoughts, words, representations, etc will never do God justice, so it isn't in anyone's best interests to treat those who see things differently in an uncharitable manner. How else are we going to understand each other?
Loving God teaches all of these things naturally. To love God, you have to have charity. Otherwise, what are you doing? Leaning on your own understanding. This is not faith in God, this is faith in knowledge. Knowledge is not Truth. The Truth is God, not knowledge. A little humility goes a long way when it comes to gaining understanding.
