CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
10
Intelligent Design Random Natural Chance
Debate Score:20
Arguments:20
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Intelligent Design (10)
 
 Random Natural Chance (9)

Debate Creator

iPhi(239) pic



What is the most likely creator of the universe/life/etc.. as we know it?

feel free to drag the evolution can of worms into this debate, they always do

Intelligent Design

Side Score: 10
VS.

Random Natural Chance

Side Score: 10
1 point

as much as i'd like to go over this argument line by line for the billionth time, here's the spoilers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL2YdgsbLkw

feel free to "debunk" any items you think are incorrect. at least you might learn a bit about biology that you seem passionate about debating... :) enjoy!

Intelligently Designed arguments
Side: Intelligent Design
iPhi(239) Clarified
1 point

and this only covers the topic of LIFE, you should here the atheist "arguments" about the creation of time/space/matter/universe/etc...

it's a wacky religion...

/aliensdidit

//multiverse means anything is possible :D lulz

Side: Intelligent Design
1 point

A creator who wants to roleplay his creations as he pleases. It's impossible if we say we are greater than the one who create us, that creator is greater than us. We can say it's energy or something you wish it were but I'm sure no one knows the exact truth. The clue we have is that , it's more powerful than anything in this life. All that evidence that you got, is nothing but just another lead to your desired maker.

Side: Intelligent Design
1 point

It is a proven scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself. The universe is physical. Therefore, it was created. Any questions?

Side: Intelligent Design
Hypothetical(67) Disputed
1 point

God of the gaps for the most part. You're forgetting to realize that time may not have always existed in our universe. The matter and everything physical we have in the Universe could have always been there, since before time; and through the idea of entropy, something happened and time was created as well as everything we know today. Religion was created to explain the world around people who lacked the scientific ability to understand it. The God you worship and the religion you follow was determined by where and when you were born, yet you choose to believe in it still. Also, you can't try and use scientific fact for a claim that has absolutely no scientific evidence suggesting its existence. That's paradoxical.

Side: Random Natural Chance
Grugore(856) Disputed
1 point

Do you even read what you post on here? Most scientists agree that time and space had a beginning. So, if there was no time and space before the big bang, when and where did the big bang happen? Also, every bit of scientific knowledge we possess states that nothing physical can be eternal. Sure, some claim energy has always existed. They say this because they have no way of explaining it's existence. Energy cannot be created or destroyed...by humans. God would have no problem with that.

Side: Intelligent Design
1 point

crystal healing, just needs a few million years and voila you have life!

crystal healing makes life!
Side: Intelligent Design
0 points

The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe, in both Christianity and Deism.

Sir Isaac Newton, among other leaders in the scientific revolution, including René Descartes, upheld "that the physical laws he had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watchmaker, wherein the watchmaker is God."[1]

The 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection put forward an explanation for complexity and adaptation, which reflects scientific consensus on the origins of biological diversity.[2] In the eyes of some, this provided a counter-argument to the watchmaker analogy: for example, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins referred to the analogy in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker giving his explanation of evolution. Others, however, consider the watchmaker analogy to be compatible with evolutionary creation, opining that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In the 19th century, deists, who championed the watchmaker analogy, held that Darwin's theory fit with "the principle of uniformitarianism—the idea that all processes in the world occur now as they have in the past" and that deistic evolution "provided an explanatory framework for understanding species variation in a mechanical universe."[3]

In the United States, starting in the 1960s, creationists revived versions of the argument to dispute the concepts of evolution and natural selection, and there was renewed interest in the watchmaker argument. The most famous statement of this teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.[4]

Supporting Evidence: You're walking along a beach, and stumble upon a watch.... (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Intelligent Design
Hootie(364) Disputed
0 points

The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer.

It's a circular argument because the idea of a designer rests on the assumption that there is a design.

Side: Random Natural Chance
iPhi(239) Disputed
1 point

are you familiar with the concept of design? if so would you say that life, let's consider a living organism made up of a cell or many cells, is a design or the result of random accidents?

Side: Intelligent Design
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

NOM there is a circular design as to why Leftist are Mooslime Lovers ???????????

Side: Intelligent Design
1 point

I actually am unusual among all groups here. I believe at the core reality is a binary random number generator. Then the first, original level of power 'God' leaves very little to chance past herself.

Side: Random Natural Chance
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

I actually am unusual among all groups here. I believe at the core reality is a binary random number generator. Then the first, original level of power 'God' leaves very little to chance past herself.

Now that is some Leftist Psycho Babble Right There !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has Antarctica caused you problems ??????????????

Side: Intelligent Design
1 point

Hello i:

Marijahoochie.

excon

Side: Random Natural Chance
1 point

I have a few things to say

1. Saying that the Universe is physical therefore it must have been created makes no sense. For most people the concept of "something out of nothing" has no meaning because of the way they picture the vacuum. Actually, I'm afraid we are stuck with bad notation and what we call vacuum in reality is not empty, it's not "pure space" but it's a continuum (we don't even know if this is true) made of what are oscillations in the energy of elementary fields that can shift and become mass (thus matter). I will not develop the whole theory here, but the juice of it is in NO context there is the need of introducing an "Intelligent Design" that - conveniently - solves our problems.

2. The argument of "causal regression" is quite naive. The idea that if we were to ask the question "Why?" in a looping fashion we would end up in an infinite regression is completely fine. I don't understand how it is possible to think that picturing an infinite set/layers of knowledge about the Universe is more difficult or implausible than the solution proposed by religious people of defining a Creator whose main characteristic is being its own cause. This sounds more implausible to me. If the Big Bang was the beginning of time as we know it, there would be no time in which the Universe could have been created and the only way for the Creator hypothesis to survive is to add to its skill set the "Being outside time" power, which of course will then disprove all Revelations and contacts with humanity upon which all religions are built.

3. By putting the Creator as a starting point, we are just shifting the problem: Who created the Creator? Of course, by construction, the answer is: It created Itself. But then I ask myself, why the hell can the Universe be its own cause, the Creator of itself? We are effectively putting the argument on the next layer and designing a concept whose features are perfectly relatable to the Universe itself. Besides, we are giving it the new - so human - characteristic of intelligence. What do we know about intelligence? How can we differentiate it from randomness and chaos? The only intelligence we know is based on our contact with the world, that's it. And this is not slightly enough to understand how EVERYTHING works. In the same way how Quantum Mechanics is alien to us because we are used to experience deterministic, large scaled effects, there could easily be a connection between what we NOW define as intelligence and what randomness and chaos really are.

Side: Random Natural Chance
1 point

Saying that the Universe is physical therefore it must have been created makes no sense. For most people the concept of "something out of nothing" has no meaning because of the way they picture the vacuum. Actually, I'm afraid we are stuck with bad notation and what we call vacuum in reality is not empty, it's not "pure space" but it's a continuum (we don't even know if this is true) made of what are oscillations in the energy of elementary fields that can shift and become mass (thus matter). I will not develop the whole theory here, but the juice of it is in NO context there is the need of introducing an "Intelligent Design" that - conveniently - solves our problems.

Good stuff. Absolutely true. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time in otherwise empty space. It doesn't violate the conservation of energy principle because these particles usually collide with anti-particles and annihilate each other.

Side: Random Natural Chance