- 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.
It's an interesting point you make for sure, and I have no doubt you are aware that none of these arguments is new. The creation of the universe must presuppose the creation of all of the concepts contained therein, including the concept of time. Temporal arguments become irrelevant if there is no concept of time, so there is no need to ask who created the creator "first". The idea that the creation is shifted "back" is made from within the time vacuum that does not exist but for the creation of time.
Fall apart? Really? Help me with your logic. Isn't that the point of the watchmaker argument? You can't say the watch is evidence that someone made it and then deny that the watchmaker, a more sophisticated creation, must have a creator as well.
Opponents have a way of taking arguments like the one I made and attaching it to widely believed religious underpinnings as legitimate counterarguments. I only asked if the existence of certain physical phenomena were evidence that "some being" created them. Never did I reference any holy man coming from the heavens and performing magic. The implausible stories that are part and parcel of some religions were never included in my argument, therefore, have no place in this particular discussion. We might find ourselves on the same side of that discussion. My only assertion was that some creator must exist, and I would contend that this is the case irrespective of your "complex structures arising with nothing more than their inherent chemical characteristics" argument, which, by the way, begs the question "where did their chemical characteristics come from?" The length to which people go to deny the existence of the entity with arguably the most evidence supporting anything not seen is truly astonishing.
I have a simple question: If you came across a fully built house in an oasis, would that be "evidence" that some being had been there to create such a structure? Would you suggest that "science" or a "big bang" created it? Would you suggest that it appeared by chance? To argue that there is no "evidence" that God exists seems to require such tortured logic that I don't know how it can be taken seriously. A house is much less complex than a human being, an ecosystem, a solar system, or even a grasshopper, yet we would accept that as evidence that some form of creator was responsible. Having said that, I don't believe the existence of a creator in and of itself validates any man-created religion as the unquestioned path to salvation or any book written by men as the unquestioned word of God.
There are plenty of other Web 2.0 tools out there that allow classroom collaboration without the baggage that Facebook has. As the link suggests, many of its features encourage narcissistic behaviors...
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement