The Instigator
akhilarora123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vantrigar
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Did God Create The Universe?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Vantrigar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,649 times Debate No: 19337
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

akhilarora123

Con

According to big bang theory where that atoms came from who created the universe?

and as hawking said god did not create universe it came itself, a lot of substances came together on their own by chance to form the sun, stars, earth, seas, trees, rivers and mountains. Right?

But how a perfect thing can create by chance? Let me give u some examples,

eg: 1. imagine If a friend of yours came to you and said something like: "I had put some soil, stones, and a little bit of water inside a big box. I waited for a couple of years and then a computer emerged from this box." Would you believe him? You would probably think that your friend was joking, lying or mad.A computer cannot form all by itself as a result of some coincidences. First, someone plans what the computer is supposed to be like, and decides what components are to be used. Then, in large factories, engineers, technicians and hundreds of workers come together. They use huge machinery to put the computer together. That is to say, when you see a computer you would know that it did not just happen all by itself. Isn't it obvious that intelligent people make computers? The sun, earth and other plants are much larger than a computer. So, if there are those who make computers, there must be a power that creates the sun, earth, moon and stars.

eg: 2. imagine that you put the pieces of a puzzle randomly inside a balloon. After that, you fill your balloon with air and then suddenly pop it. That is to say the balloon "big banged". What happens to the puzzle's pieces that you had stuffed inside the balloon? Could these pieces form a beautiful villa or an airport-something even you could hardly manage-in the middle of your room? Or would they scatter all over the room? Of course, they would scatter all over your room. You would have to put together the puzzle's pieces for them to form an airport or a house.

Eg: 3. Let's say that you are playing on the beach and you see some big waves approaching, so you go home. When you return to the beach after a few hours, you see an amazing sight. On the shore there is a wonderful city made of sand. There are houses, hospitals, an airport, and buses. There are even human figures. You ask a friend who is passingif he knows how these things occurred. If he replied, " I think the big waves that reached the shore must have formed them," what would you think? Wouldn't you be suspicious that your friend imagined it, or wouldn't you laugh thinking that he must be joking or had perhaps become insane? It is impossible for waves to have formed such a perfect city from sand by coincidence. It is obvious that someone who is an expert in building such cities had arrived, built it and left.However, certain people – even though they are professors or scientists – accept such a ridiculous idea. They won't say, "Waves formed the city made of sand", but they would say "Tiny pieces of matter, namely the atoms, came together by chance and they formed the sun, stars and earth all by themselves." This is because these people wouldn't want to say that god created everything. They defend the wrong without believing in the right.

Now think about how orderly everything in the universe is. The sun has been put in the exact position from which it could warm us and give us light at the same time. If there were no sun, there would be no life on earth,he has also distanced the sun from earth to just the right extent. If earth was a little bit closer to the sun, the heat would have scorched it and we would not have been able to live. If earth was a littlemore distant from the sun, then glaciers would have covered it and again, few living things would have been able to survive. This is one of the reasons why there is no life on other planets, because they are either too close to the sun or too distant from it,

and As you know, living things need to breathe in order to live. We need oxygen in the air so that we can breathe. Exactly the right amount of oxygen exists in the air so that human beings can breathe. If there were a little bit more or a little bit less, neither we, nor the animals, nor the plants would have survived, because we need to breathe in order to live.

One of the most important things that make it possible for us to survive is water. No organism can live without water. For this reason, he has created some parts of earth as water. Three quarters of earth's surface is covered with water. However, there is no water on any of the other planets nor is there any water on the moon that yousee at night. The essentials for living things are only available on earth,

Do you know that every day many meteors fall on earth?

When meteors fall on other planets, they create giant craters, but when they fall on earth, they don't cause much harm.The reason for this is the atmosphere that surrounds earth. The atmosphere encircles our planet as a protective shield. A meteor entering the atmosphere shrinks through combustion. When it comes closer to the surface of earth, it becomes even smaller. Therefore, the meteor becomes very small or even diminishes and disappears completely by the time it reaches the surface of the earth, and causes us no harm.because god has surrounded our planet with a protective shield, they don't do us much harm. The atmosphere encircles earth as a protective shield. Thanks to the atmosphere, we are protected from many threats without even realising it.The atmosphere doesn't only prevent the harm of meteors but it also absorbs harmful rays that come from the Sun. Yet again, if these harmful rays were able to reach earth's surface, it would have been impossible for living things to survive,

Many events on earth make it possible for us to live. If even only one of these events doesn't take place, no living thing would be left on earth. So, is it possible that these thousands of events have come together spontaneously and formed such a place as earth? Of course not. Not even one of these events could happen by chance. God has created earth for human beings. And, because of this, earth is the most suitable place for us.

Now i guess what maybe u all r thinking if god created universe then who created god right?

Well, he has no starting and no end, he put illusion in our mind to confuse us thats the reason we think someone should create god, but in real he always exist, no one create him!

And as hawking said before big bang there is no time so there r nothing before big bang.... means "NO GOD?"

see there is another universe in other side of our, and Physical Laws of dat universe r differen then our, in that universe he not need time to create anything, so first he create time, and then our universe from there in a result of big bang
Vantrigar

Pro

Debate – Did God Create the Universe

OK. Obviously the burden of proof is on Con here (who I'll refer to as Pro from here on out), so I'll limit myself to responding to his arguments for the time being.

Pro begins with the rather tired old chestnut of about the complex, man-made artifact that could not possibly have arisen by coincidence, analogous to the popular idea of a watch found on a beach. Surely we would be insane to propose that such a complex phenomenon could have arisen out of blind processes? Well, yes, we would be insane, but it in no way follows that should believe the same intentionality of natural objects. The process by which a computer is built has almost nothing in common with the way, say, a human being comes into existence. Computers are constructed with an end-product already mapped out in detail by the computer-builder. Human beings, on the other hand, arise out of the essentially blind process of evolution by natural selection.
Now I don't intend to be rude here, but I have a suspicion that Pro may not be fully aware of what evolution is or how it works, as it is not mentioned once throughout his argument. In brief: evolution is simply what happens when organisms compete for procreative rights in a competitive natural environment. The biggest, strongest or otherwise best-adapted organisms are BETTER AT SURVIVING, and therefore are MORE LIKELY TO PROCREATE. Let's take human beings as an example. Out primary adaptive advantages over other primates are our intelligence and our dexterity. In the distant past, the most intelligent of out ancestors survived, not because they were destined to or because anybody had any kind of 'future human' blueprint in mind, but because they OUTSMARTED their competition and created tools to aid them. This meant that they survived at higher rate and had more children. Since genes carry adaptive capacities forward tot he next generation, a higher percentage of the second generation of proto-humans were intelligent and dextrous. The process repeats, leaving each subsequent generation will a greater wealth of whatever adaptation has PROVED the most effective at ENABLING SURVIVAL. At no point is it ever necessary to posit a 'plan'. Complex things arise out of a large amount of simple events occurring cumulatively, one after another. Nothing complex simply springs into existence; it is the result of a slow, incremental and above all blind process of cause and effect.
In response to Pro's jigsaw in a balloon argument: nobody would ever claim that pieces of a jigsaw could, when flung about randomly, create a villa or an airport. Villas and airports are 'synthetic' items; they require a sentient mind, namely that of a human, to build them with a blue-print already in mind. Stars and planets are natural phenomena, which means that they arise out of blind natural processes. Let's say that two or three of these jigsaw pieces land on top of one another. This small tower may not be a particularly complicated structure, but that is due to the limited nature of what we started out with. But imagine that what we start out with is every element in the universe. You would find a lot more events comparable to two jigsaw pieces landing on top of one another. You would find elements crashing into each other, twisting off in different directions into the vastness of space, combining to create new elements, forming clouds of gasses that eventually coalesce, under the pull of their own gravity, to form stars and planets. Each individual event, like two atoms crashing together, is incredibly simple, occurring in a fraction of a second. The SUM TOTAL of these events, however, is enormously complex. In the case of our universe, the result is, trillions of years down the line, the development of sentient life (through evolution by natural selection), capable of the level of cognition and forward planning required to build villas and airports.
Pro then goes on to expound another somewhat played-out argument, namely, that it is ridiculous to suppose that the the extraordinary constellation of circumstances that allow us to live on Earth could have arisen by chance. I suppose the idea here is that we humans require such an enormous number of things to be, as in Goldilocks's porridge, 'just right', that it is absurd to think that each of those circumstances could have fallen into correspondence by chance. The fatal flaw of this argument is in assuming that human beings and their requirements for existence come into play before the very situation that gives rise to them. Human beings have come into existence because of a certain constellation of circumstances, not the other way around. Nature has absolutely no obligation to constitute itself in such a way as to give rise to us. We are here because nature happened to constitute itself in a particular way. If it were constituted differently, we would not be here, and there would be nobody to worry about how it got that way.
By way of illustration: Let us imagine a man who, at the time of his death by heart attack at the ripe old age of 110, has never suffered any kind of illness or ailment throughout his life. We might ask 'how is this possible?' or say 'what an extraordinary number things must have fallen into place for him to never come into contact with enough germs or bacteria to make him ill, or never to have come into contact with violence or accident'. But then we look at the concrete circumstances of his life. He was a clean-freak, washing his hands at every opportunity and keeping his home, which he rarely left, in spotless condition. He never left his own country, and so was never subject to the possibility of foreign bacteria. He lived in a safe, eco-friendly neighborhood with no crime and little pollution. As a child he was coddled by his parents and rarely let out to play with his friends in the forest, where he might have sustained the odd cut or bruise, or contracted a cold. Suddenly, it becomes very easy to see how this man could have gone is whole life in such perfect health. In fact, it becomes increasingly difficult to imagine how it could have turned out differently.
When we look at the material conditions of human existence, we find the same thing. Given the combination of events that give rise to planet earth as we know it, it seems ludicrous to think that human beings could not have come into existence. This in no way presupposes that the universe ordered itself in such a way as to purposefully give rise to us, just has the world did not collaborate to keep the healthy man healthy. A healthy world was simply the one he lived in. It is not that 'there is exactly enough oxygen in the air so that human can breathe'. Rather, given the amount of oxygen that happens to be in the air, organisms on earth have evolved so as to take advantage of that fact. It is not the case that the atmosphere is there in order to protect us from meteors and sun. Rather, because the atmosphere means that less UV rays and meteors strike the earth's surface, certain sorts of organisms have evolved on earth (namely ones that would otherwise be susceptible to UV rays). Pro has conceived of cause and effect backwards, reasoning from the requirements of human life back to the material circumstances of the universe. The circumstances of the universe are always prior to human requirements. Human requirements arise out of their nature, which develops due to the circumstances of their environment. We do not enjoy the sight of abundant nature because nature his designed to be pleasing to out senses. We are designed (by which it should go without saying that I mean evolved) to find natural abundance appealing to the senses because natural abundance suggests those things we need for survival (food, water, the shelter of trees etc), and it therefore increases our chances of survival if we are drawn to locales of natural abundance.
Debate Round No. 1
akhilarora123

Con

akhilarora123 forfeited this round.
Vantrigar

Pro

As akhilarora123 (Con by name, Pro by nature) has forfeited round 2, i'll refrain for posting further arguments until he rejoins the debate and responds to my opening salvo.
Debate Round No. 2
akhilarora123

Con

akhilarora123 forfeited this round.
Vantrigar

Pro

Vantrigar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
akhilarora123

Con

akhilarora123 forfeited this round.
Vantrigar

Pro

Vantrigar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
akhilarora123

Con

akhilarora123 forfeited this round.
Vantrigar

Pro

Vantrigar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Vantrigar 5 years ago
Vantrigar
Just to clarify, it looks as though I'm actually Con and vice-versa!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
akhilarora123VantrigarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: she FF'd less