There is no scientific or philosophical reason to believe in a creator
agree
Side Score: 15
|
disagree
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
The problem with there being a creator is, who created the creator? In fairness that isn't a problem because you're implying an infinite regression must necessarily exist in order for anything to be created. It works against atheists too if you think about it. For example: the problem with computers having a creator is who created the creator? Side: disagree
1
point
|
5
points
An objectively false statement, and a rather stupid statement of intellectual midgetry. You're literally subhuman, that's how cognitively impaired you are. That was a nice little assertion paired with ad-hominem but I'm afraid you are too stupid to have a real debate so I'm going to have to slap you in the face with my ban-stick. Side: agree
1
point
1
point
The chemical Darwinian definition of life: ‘Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.’ The problem with this definition is...Why would a self-sustained chemical system (capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution) acquire consciousness (the ability to modify its environment)? ;) Side: disagree
1
point
The problem with this definition is...Why would a self-sustained chemical system (capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution) acquire consciousness (the ability to modify its environment)? ;) Well, no. It isn't a problem with the definition because the definition doesn't mention consciousness. You added that part yourself. It is however, a very good question. The scientific answer of course is that consciousness is a genetic mutation which greatly assisted the survival of our species. BUT... It leads onto some far more interesting questions. For example: why is life self-sustaining? What explains the survival of life before it became conscious and hence decided it wanted to survive? Physics bends towards chaos, not order, so why did life continue to survive and grow? Side: agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
|