The Instigator
ILL_logic
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
laker7745
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Did Yaweh create the cosmos?

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...
ILL_logic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 46023
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

ILL_logic

Con

i AM CON - CHALLENGER IS PRO (MEANING the challenger will explain to me that YAWEH is the creator of the cosmos ) if any "EVIDENCE" that you give me is taken from the bible its invaid
laker7745

Pro

Can you provide visual, actual recordable evidence of evolution, or how about the law of gravity no, you can not, you see the law of gravity is not material, and the theory of evolution is just that a thoery because you can not , God is only logical lets go back and back and back, you see Science says something can not come from nothing yet they say our Universe is 13.8 billion years old according to Planck. So if you contradict yourself this badly in saying that something cannot come from nothing then how did we get here, how did the LAWS themselves get here? Without those laws we cannot be here, so where did the laws come from, Science is always changing, 200 years from now what we learned now will be scoffed at, however the Abrahamic religions which are some of the oldest have always stayed constant. Now Science is very useful yes no doubt, but how can you claim to say God doesn't exist when you cannot even explain how water came to Earth? Logic, we can go all the way back and you can just ask where did it come from? The laws which science claims created the universe according to sciences laws had to come from something, so if there was nothing where did it come from? God.
Debate Round No. 1
ILL_logic

Con

yes ! you are correct ! evolution is a theory ,and so is gravity . gravity is just a theory , but i dont see you jumping out of windows
laker7745

Pro

You are correct but that was just an example what I am saying is that just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there and influencing your life. It all goes back to logic, science claims it knows how its laws created the universe yet it forgets to show us where those laws themselves came from and according to their laws it had to come from something. So that someone is God, and not as science claims its laws, this is simple logic.
Debate Round No. 2
ILL_logic

Con

ok well here is an example for you

i have a box that i give to you ,inside this box i say there is a zebra you open the box and say "i see no zebra "
i tell you that the zebra is invisible after that you put your hand in the box and state "i cannot feel the zebra" well ok then i tell you that the zebra is also intangible ..well how does it fit in the box? its also microscopic . its a microscopic invisible intangible zebra . you ask me how you are supposed to believe me .. its because it talks to me ...i want you to believe me because the zebra talked to me and only i can hear it.

this is religion
laker7745

Pro

That is the worst argument.. If you think that is religion you obviously know nothing about it. That zebra anology even being a Catholic I would look at you and go,"Your nuts" it's different when I present to you a logical argument that easily uses science to prove the existence of God. Again, for the final time to see if I can get through to you, science claims it's laws can prove how the universe was created yet can offer no explanation of how those laws themselves got to the place they are, it also doesn't allow something to be created from nothing, thus God has a role, so therefore your argument is illogical.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ILL_logic 3 years ago
ILL_logic
no need to be hostile i never asked what you think about science .you never had to enter this debate
Posted by laker7745 3 years ago
laker7745
I don't know f you've noticed but I don't give much of a s*** what science has to say, it's just as contradictory as any religion
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Con won, haha Pro used the 80's argument "evolution is only a theory" that's utterly disgraceful to science amd basic human logic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jdtroughton 3 years ago
jdtroughton
ILL_logiclaker7745Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Nothing Pro stated constituted a reason for god, merely a reason for something yet to be defined. That it need to be an Abrahamic deity (especially given Pro's oft-stated appreciation for logic) does not logically follow. Carl Sagan's dragon (or boxed zebra, as it were), was thoroughly unrefuted, and the inability of Pro to recognize the overwhelming similarities between this zebra and god constitute a much better argument on Con's behalf. I couldn't really find another worthy argument between them in the whole debate. Pro types better, so here's a piece of candy. No exemplary conduct either way. While no sources were cited, I know the subject well enough to say Con AT LEAST used Dawkins and Sagan (the examples given were nearly verbatim from these writers), while Pro only really seems to have the Bible, and those who just can't seem to accept its fallibility, and as sources; so point Con.