Does God Exist?
Debate Rounds (3)
In order to have a conversation about God, we have to break everything down to it's most basic form. We need to cast aside the notion that humans barely this side of stone age had any idea what they were dealing with. This allows us to do away with the rhetorical arguments about the earth bring formed in 7 days, immaculate conception, and women being made from rib bones. What we want to know, really, is how likely is it that God exists?
We can look at math to provide us with the statistical probability of life forming on each without intervention, and we'd be waiting a really long time. We aren't simply having to factor in variables that existed on this planet at the moment life spouted into existence, but variables that go back to the formation of the planet, and before that. Needless to say, we aren't capable of calculating the probabilty, because we can't account for all of the variables. What we do know is that variables on earth had to exist in a very specific manner, and had to interact in a very specific way for life to exist. In other words, it is statistically improbable that life occurred spontaneously on this planet.
Also it isn't just coincidental that life formed and developed on a planet suitable to obtain life. If it wasn't suitable for life then it simply wouldn't have produced life. This is know as the Anthropic Principle. The reason life developed on a planet so finely tuned for life is because on any other planet in different conditions, life couldn't develop. Life simply developed on planet earth because its conditions allowed for it.
That life could exist on other planets does not prove absolutely that it does. Of course, I will have to concede that at least one other species exists, as mentioned throughout the bible. We refer to them as Angels, but they are in fact another form of life, whatever they might be. That life exists elsewhere does not mean that said life occurred spontaneously:
"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground..."(Genesis 2:7, NIV)
When you break this verse down to it's most basic parts, what you have is a description of God creating a human man from something found on the earth. We know that life didn't spawn from "dust", but from a combination of RNA and proteins. We understand that some inorganic process caused these molecules to bond together, but how that occurred is still a subject of debate. One theory posited that conditions on the earth itself synthesized the nucleotides necessary for life, which has since hit a wall as theories surrounding conditions on early earth have changed. We believe that abiotic synthesis occurred, but what triggered that synthesis is unknowable. That we acknowledge life could exist in abundance in the universe, and that we as humans can synthesize the components of RNA lends to the theory that life could have been designed. The issue then with creation in a biblical context is semantics. Science supports the conclusion of abiotic synthesis(modern abiogenesis), which one could argue is what God attempted to explain to humanity. Of course, we understand that our understanding of any concept hinges on our background knowledge on respective subject matter. So what I believe we have with this verse, and Genesis as a whole, is humanity's understanding of concepts expressed by God they couldn't possibly understand.
How can you possibly believe something from a 2,000 year old book rather scientific evidence, which completely contradicts it?
As I stated previously, taking the bible literally is a mistake. The story of creation is humanity's attempt to reconcile processes it has no background information upon which to garner any understanding of. We know that evolution is a natural process, and it is how existing plant and animal life came to be. What the creation story tells is how God engineered life, that the story focuses on humanity is a product of ego. What God, in my opinion, is attempting to explain is abiotic synthesis, that God set life on this planet in motion. When viewed from a scientific perspective, the story of creation actually expresses modern scientific theory. Given that we can replicate part of this synthesis in a lab, how far fetched is it to assert that life on this planet was a product of similar engineering at the least, if not guided evolution?
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.