Does God Exist?
Debate Rounds (5)
You may start your argument.
There is not evidence that supports there is a God and thus one can assume there is no GOD!
If you argue against it then you have to provide evidence that he exists: Do you have any evidence for your claim that god exists? if yes provide me with your evidence. If no then your claim is automatically dismissed because of the "Presumption of Innocence" principle that states: "the burden of proof is on he who declares not on he who denies". I am the denying party by the way!
And please don't tell you believe, your belief is of no value in a debate if not backed by evidence!
Rebuttal: First, let me derive my attention to your statement on the "Presumption of Innocence". This is a strictly philosophical argument, and right. It is, indeed, used in many countries. However, the Internet is not a country, and therefore, the burden of proof does not necessarily have to be on my shoulders. I will, however, try and prove to you that there is enough evidence for God to exist. So my rebuttal to your statement "There is no evidence that supports the existence of God" is essentially my argument.
Argument: I will present my argument in simple form and then elaborate later on.
The universe exists, therefore God exists.
The universe had to have a beginning, according to the first and second law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics sates that the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. The second law basically states that the entropy is increasing to a maximum, or in other words, the energy we have available for work is decreasing. Let me use this simple metaphor that has, undoubtedly, been used in the past.
You fill up your car with gas. You drive, and you keep on driving. Eventually, if you don't put more gas into it, what is going to happen? You will run out of gas. Now picture this as the world. It runs on energy. Eventually it will run out.
If the universe existed forever, then we would have run out of energy. Therefore, the universe did not exist forever.
Also, it is important to understand that everything is caused by something else. I am not going to elaborate on this point, for it is simple enough, and cannot be proved otherwise.
Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God. If you have another idea of who it was started by, I would be glad to hear it, though I am pretty sure the "creator" would fall under the definition of God.
Now, if you have been paying attention to my argument, you might ask, "If everything came from something else, then where did God come from?" The answer is simple enough. God has always existed, and therefore would not fall under point two of my argument. (Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.) God did not have a beginning. As a matter of fact, he created everything, including time. Therefore, . We cannot put God into the dimensions of our universe, for he has created them. (If you need proof from the Bible on the characteristics of God, 2 Peter 3:8)
This is all I have to say for this round, and I look forward to your reply.
The first law of thermodynamic states that that the total energy of an isolated system is constant. The energy never vanishes, it just changes from one form to another. Further thermodynamic does not investigate the mechanisms of energy conversion. It is simply out of its scope. It only tries to explain the mathematical relations between heat and work. Energy conversion systems although do exists as we see around us, have nothing to do with thermodynamic. I don"t even know why you did you use the car-gas example! To show the universe will eventually run out of gas? You are directly contradicting yourself and the first law of thermodynamic!
The second law of thermodynamic assert that: There is a relation between the level of entropy and disorder. "The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease" or increase. The entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously increase but that would require an equal amount of entropy decrease in other parts of the system. When heat moves from a hot part of the system, the level of entropy in the hot part decreases while at the same time its level increases in the cooler part. Universe is a close system thus all mentioned laws can be applied to the universe as a whole. What you imply is that the entropy can never decrease and this assertion is in direct contradiction with the second law of thermodynamic that states again quoting: "entropy equals to heat flow divided by absolute temperature". Thus universe (or at least the matter that the universe is built from) could have always existed and can exist forever without a necessity for an intervening superior creator or god! The argument you are trying to use as a matter of fact is a very well-known argument that religion tries to inadequately use. I am not a thermodynamic expert but even I know that the thermodynamic is not designed to deal with situations that explain order and chaos, as a matter of fact, thermodynamic is limited to mathematical equations. If it cannot be expressed mathematically it is not thermodynamic!
Yes our universe started out as a big bang fourteen some billion years ago, but the matter and energy could have existed well before that time. How? We don"t know yet. Like many other things we may or may not find out. But the fact that we don"t know does not suddenly make it acceptable for us to assume there is a creator deity (of any form). The system works well without it. I am sure you"ve heard about Occam's razor. It states that: "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but"in the absence of certainty"the fewer assumptions that are made, the better". My hypothesis makes far fewer assumptions because first and foremost is only relies on evidence. While yours assumes there is a God that rules of nature cannot be applied to him. By stating that you are relying on a "creatio ex nihilo" philosophy. But if God can be non-contingence any other being can be non-contingent as well. Then why the matter cannot? Accepting the non-contingency of the matter requires far less assumptions and is well explained. Your hypothesis does not explain the existence of god, it just assumes it without being able to correlate the assumed god, the creator, to his creation. When you fail to even prove the existence of a creator deity how are you gonna prove the existing of an intervening one? Even if you prove that there is a need for a creator to explain the universe, you still have all your work ahead of you proving the existence of intervening deity of your choice.
The concept even seems more absurd when you think about it: "Universe exists thus God exists. But not any God, a specifically described omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity described in a book written by some nomadic people in a remote part of Middle East some 2000 years ago... and wait for it" we cannot prove he exists" and we don"t need him because everything works pretty well without him" but we assume he exists" why? Well because we trust the book! Hmmm...
And I would say: "that is a very good hypothesis indeed!"
Thank you and have a good day
I know what the first and second laws are. And the third one as well.
The first one states that you cannot get something from nothing. (Matter and Energy are conversed.)
The second law states that you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase/ equal disorder. (Entropy always increases.) And yes, this applies to a closed system. My short answer is that the universe is a closed system. Yes, one part of the universe can suddenly drop in entropy while another stays the same, however the universe as a whole is slowly (if not quickly) increasing its entropy. Do you get what I am saying?
Now that you have bought up the big bang, I just have one question to ask. Where did the quantum vacuum come from? For according to the first law of thermodynamics, that is impossible. And the answer is... Yep, that's right, you don't know.
In answer to your comment about a book, I made no attempt to bring up the Bible, or any other religious book. I just included that in parentheses to use God as an EXPLAINABLE being. God is explainable. He is eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy, loving, just, etc...
Occum's Razor. Ah, yes. The only thing you fail to realize is that God is indeed the simplest solution. He created everything. The end. No need to complicate it with ABIOGENESIS and evolution. (Abiogenesis is the form of life from non-life. Prove it by the way, if you want to.) Since you chose the side of evolution, (Which you did not have to) I will now tend to argue against it.
You have also failed to make any argument as to why God doesn't exist. You have just rebutted my statements. And may I remind you, this is a debate, not a United States Courthouse.
Argument: I will write an argument in the next round, as of my limit of time. (I would like to point out that Con hasn't made an argument either, so it is completely fair.
Thank you and sorry for the extremely short and simple reply.
I totally understand what you are saying about the second law. I just don"t understand why you are saying it! First off let me explain a little bit about entropy because it seems you have not properly understood what it means. Entropy in it is core, does not represent the level of chaos in a close system. It represent the level of UNIFORMITY! What does that mean? "Strictly speaking, entropy is the logarithm of the multiplicity of states, or the degree of dispersion of energy in a system". Simply put, it means that a closed system always moves from having a less probable sets of states to having a more probable sets of stats. Again if I want to open it even further the maximum entropy means that all the states of the systems will become similar and complete uniformity will be achieved. Everything in the universe will become exactly the same as everything else. Of course you can call this state a complete chaos, but by no means will the universe be disordered on this state!
Although the thermodynamic mainly uses the entropy to explain the process of equalization of the heat in different parts of the system it also can be applied to the matter although not in the way you are trying to use it! What you want to say is, order can never be created from disorder by itself. But again your view is in a direct contradiction with the second law of thermodynamic. Second law explains that trough energy transformation process from a part of the system with a higher energy level (the hot part) to a part with a lower energy level (the cold part), a certain amount of work toward the uniformity of the system as a whole will be done. The law then predicts that because the process cannot be reversed without applying additional energy to the system, the closed system at the maximum level of entropy will be totally uniform (here what it means is, all the parts will have similar temperature). The concept is simple enough and totally understandable. The universe unlike what you say is moving from chaos toward the complete uniformity through the transformation of heat. This idea is very simple to understand. You just need to look how the universe have come to order from the moment of big bang. It is certainly more orderly than before I guess.
Again, you are bringing totally unrelated topics that neither of us can properly understand. Quantum vacuum is string theory, people actually have won Nobel prizes for working on these fields. I hope you are aware that randomly throwing worlds in the debate and saying that we don"t have answers to some of the most complex mathematical problems, does not suddenly legitimize your arguments. But just to be sure I did some Googling and found this article. Again I am not a physicist and I don"t understand quantum mechanics but the source is written by a physicist and explains why quantum vacuum does not violate the first law of thermodynamic. It says:" Saying that quantum mechanics does not conserve energy is misinterpreting quantum mechanics." And I believe him, because he is a quantum physicist (or at least he claims he is!).
When you are directly quoting from the bible in your argument, it implies that you are referencing to it and thus it allows me to argue about the legitimacy of your references (in this case the bible). This is how a debate works. Beside the description you are trying to provide for God precisely matches the current version of God advertised by Abrahamic religions. So it leaves me no other option than to strongly suggest that you are referring to that particular God. Again you are contradicting your claim of not bringing up the bible by stating immediately that the "God is explainable. He is eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy, loving, etc"" You claim God is explainable but so far you have not provided any explanation for his existence. Your statements just tries to imply that God cannot not exist (I hate double negatives and yet I am using them here!)
Again you do have not provided me with any reason why the god is the solution. Simple yes of course it is. It makes explaining everything simple. Listen to these sentences and tell me what you think about them: "Madness is caused by devils." Plague is a punishment sent by God for our sins". "Earth was created 6000 years ago by God and in six days!" etc" and tell me how familiar they are? Sure we all know that they are not true because we have better explanation for them now but 500 years ago they were as true as saying that the God has created the universe. God is not a hypothesis, he is an assumption to simplify things. Claiming that he exists without backing it without evidence proves nothing! Are you asking because we don"t have all the answers we should stop looking and just accept the most comfortable explanation? Is this really the argument? No need to complicate things with Abiogenesis and evaluation? These are facts, they are not even theories. They have been proven millions of times. Every time you take a flu shot, every time a child is saved with modern medicine, every time you fly on an airplane, every single world that I am writing using this computer half away around the world is a proof that the idea of not complicating and replacing God with truth does not work. We have to be humble for the things we know and curious for the things we don"t. We can never find all the answers but believe you me, we should never stop looking.
All I am doing is making arguments against claims. Although I did not need to provide any evidence on why the existence of god is very improbable (if not impossible) but I have done so if you go through what I have stated so far. My main duty in this debate however is not providing evidence. Again based on the "Presumption of innocence". You are declaring something and I am denying it. It is a basis for every argument. It"s the basis of law. If you have no proof it cannot be argued upon! "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens). You have tried to provide proof but I have rejected them all based on the evidence I have provided. Provide me with more and then I will make more arguments.
I do not care who wins, as a matter of fact, I can concede.
Thank you Con for a wonderful debate.
Sorry, and thank you.
Thank you for your time and have a wonderful life.
thisisbob forfeited this round.
JohnSmiththe10th forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
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.