ATHEISM over THEISM
Debate Rounds (5)
The following is just my point of view.
To me, by the true evidence by nature, I myself believe God does not exist. Science is how we get answers by nature with empirical evidence. Just because that scientists today still cannot proof how, why or what we came from, doesn't mean that Religions can create a nonsense belief out of nothing without any solid proofs. Why must "what goes up, must come down"? That's because of gravity and not because of gods not allowing humans to fly.
Would you deny science for disobeying the laws of nature and substitute God with it? No! Because of the evidence by nature, we are able to come up with experiments and get explanations from it. With the help of science, our lives changed and leaped with an abundance since the Newton's first law was born. How about God though? Is there real evidence that shows God's existence? If there is, I, and the people that agrees with me will certainly agree with ANY religions.
Thanks for reading my perspective.
For lack of a proper definition of "God", I hereby take God to mean: the primal force behind creation. In 1927, a Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre proposed the most widely accepted theory in particle physics for the creation of the universe: the Big Bang, which was proven possible by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The Big Bang states that in the beginning, there was a singularity. In quantum physics, a singularity is a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume (Source: home.web.cern.ch - the Official Website of the European Organization for Nuclear Research [CERN], en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity). Examples of singularities today include the focuses of black holes. From this singularity, erupted the purest form of energy: photons. The photons erupted in a mass of energy, provoking a "reverse-annihilation" of matter and antimatter, thus creating the first particles of matter and antimatter.
The Big Bang theory is clearly described in the Hindu scripture, the Mahabharata: "When this world was first without light, plunged in absolute darkness, a golden seed emerged from a single point: of inexhaustible matter that expanded into the universe; and Bramha (or Brahma) the Creator emerged as this Mahadivya, Brahman itself, that is God, became the universe." (The Complete Mahabharata: Volume I - Adi Parva, translated by Ramesh Menon; The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dvaipayana Vyasa, translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli)
In Sanskrit, the universe is referred to as Brahmanda, or Brahman-anda. The word "Brahman" derives from the root Brh, which means "to expand", and Anda means "egg", a reference to the elliptical shape of the universe according to modern physics. (source: Wikipedia)
As described, the Mahadivya, of inexhaustible matter, also had energy; that is similar to the theory of Hawking radiation, that says black holes radiate energy. Since this is a Hindu perception of God, I can take it to mean "God."
For lack of proper definitions, the Big Bang reigns supreme in that the universe had a primal force creating it. And what of the Taoist, Buddhist, Christian and Hindu ideas of the omnipresence of God?
The cosmic quantum entanglement theory is a theory in particle physics that all particles in the universe are under a quantum entanglement, i.e. they interact in ways that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently; instead, a quantum state is given to the system as a whole. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement; www.newscientist.com)
This is similar to the entangled force of the Dhammakaya of Buddhism, Tao of Taoism, and the omnipresent God, or Allah, in Abrahamic religions, and even the Hindu Brahman. So, by this definition, God DOES exist, as an omnipresent, creative force; only a Supreme Being may not.
"Science and religion are not at odds. Science is just too young to understand."
-- Angels & Demons by Dan Brown
Note 1: Definitions cannot be restated in the second round, as it has not been mentioned in the first.
Note 2: God is not a substitution for science; what if science is God? That is the concept of theo-physics.
Sources: The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra; Wikipedia; www.newscientist.com; The Complete Mahabharata by Ramesh Menon; The Mahabharata of Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli
Indeed, Atheists see God as a nonsense, and the same for how Theists see science as. But to me, science is possible the explanation of how and what we came from. Science is a concept of understanding the place we live in, based on the LAWS AND THE EVIDENCE GIVEN BY NATURE AROUND US. But theists do see that God is the perfect substitution for science because they think that science is nonsense as science has no clear potential to explain the world.
Source/s: Oxford Dictionary of English, American edition, 2013
Science is the explanation of the world and will always be. Science can guarantee us of how we should live and what we should not do.
Why should God be an explanation of the world anyways? God is created by different religions around the globe. Each religion has it's own God and the story behind God. It just stories told be different religions out of scratch and people believe in them, and therefore trust God as the explanation of our lives and the source of the universe and human beings?
"1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, 2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. 3 Then God commanded, "Let there be light""and light appeared. 4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness, 5 and he named the light "Day" and the darkness "Night." Evening passed and morning came"that was the first day.
6-7 Then God commanded, "Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places""and it was done. So God made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it. 8 He named the dome "Sky." Evening passed and morning came"that was the second day.
9 Then God commanded, "Let the water below the sky come together in one place, so that the land will appear""and it was done. 10 He named the land "Earth," and the water which had come together he named "Sea." And God was pleased with what he saw. 11 Then he commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit""and it was done. 12 So the earth produced all kinds of plants, and God was pleased with what he saw. 13 Evening passed and morning came"that was the third day.
14 Then God commanded, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals[c] begin; 15 they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth""and it was done. 16 So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. 17 He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God was pleased with what he saw. 19 Evening passed and morning came"that was the fourth day."
-- Genesis 1:1-1:19
As seen above, the Bible proclaims that God created everything in opposites. It may have been a metaphor for the Big Bang creating matter and antimatter: polar opposite forms of matter. In every faith and religion, God, while perhaps irrationally perceived, also metaphorically represents science. While a supreme being, an organism of such structure, may not exist, a force that created the universe (a.k.a. "God") certainly does.
"That which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion."
-- Albert Einstein
Sources: Oxford Dictionary of English, American edition, 2015; http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...; Horizons of Cosmology by Joseph Silk; Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh; http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...; http://www.esa.int...; Cosmology and Controversy by H. Kragh; The Oxford Companion to Philosophy; http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu...; http://apod.nasa.gov...; http://www.astro.ucla.edu...; The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime by Stephen Hawking and George Ellis; A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking; A Briefer History of Time by Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking; Expansion of the Universe: Standard Big Bang Model by Roos M.; http://www.fqxi.org... (A thesis by Emmanuel Moulay); The Inflationary Universe: Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins by Alan Guth; The Holy Bible, The Book of Genesis 1:1 to 1:19; http://en.wikiquote.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...
JordanCJKM forfeited this round.
What is different between God and science? As explained in the previous arguments, God is an aspect of nature; not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient, just immensely powerful (with infinite density and zero volume). Isaac Newton, a firm believer in the scientific aspects of God, compared God to gravity. These singularities, described in previous arguments, have large amounts of gravity, absorbing all forms of matter, antimatter and energy and warping entropy such that time itself slows down to almost a standstill; it then radiates the same absorbed energy in a fraction of a second, unseen because time is warped. Is warping time not immensely powerful? According to a widely accepted theory, black holes and singularities can even completely obliterate information. This is God. And, in rebuttal to the above paragraph, and in conclusion: "Science and religion are not at odds. Science is just too young to understand."
Sources: General Relativity by Robert M. Wald; Space, Time and Gravity: the Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes by Robert M. Wald; The Galactic Supermassive Black Hole by Fulvio Melia; The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime by Stephen Hawking and George Ellis; Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip S. Thorne; The Nature of Space and Time by Robert Penrose and Stephen Hawking; Black Holes in Spacetime by Kitty Ferguson; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://www.nytimes.com...; Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking, television show on the Discovery Channel (see http://www.discovery.com...)
JordanCJKM forfeited this round.
Used better sources: My opponent did not use any sources; my sources were books by physicists such as Leonard Mlodinow, Simon Singh, Joseph Silk, George Ellis, Stephen Hawking, Robert M. Wald, Fulvio Melia, Kip S. Thorne, Robert Penrose and Kitty Ferguson, in addition to the Oxford Dictionary of English and the Discovery Channel.
Had better arguments: My opponent's presentation argument did not have any reasons for not believing in God, and merely showed his perspective. His second argument CLAIMED that theists see science as "nonsense", and said they presumed God was a substitution for science. I know many theists who believe God is an enforcer of science, and he had no sources to support the argument. The next argument was questioning the reason for God being seen as an explanation. I provided ample evidence for God existing, and for lack of a proper definition of God, I provided the definition of a creative force, as seen in pantheism and, sometimes, deism. All other rounds were forfeited.
Spelling and Grammar: "Indeed, Atheists see God as a nonsense, and the same for how Theists see science as." This sentence is grammatically incorrect; "a nonsense" is not a way to describe nonsense. "The same for how" is incorrect; "the same way" would have been more appropriate. (this sentence was processed by Grammarly, and I use it as my source)
Therefore, this guarantees my seven-point victory. Please vote for me. Thanks to JordanCJKM for setting up this amazing debate, and I sheerly respect him for his arguments. No offences intended.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Con did a masterful job of conflating modern science with ambiguous and easily misinterpreted scripture in a way that his opponent couldn't easily disentangle.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.