- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
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?
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?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!