The Instigator
tahir123
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Tachibana_Otaku
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Does God Exist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Tachibana_Otaku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 35878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

tahir123

Pro

Does God exist? This is the biggest question that Mankind has ever asked. Is there a creator?

My position is yes there is a creator for the following reasons,

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Everything that begins must have a cause, the universe has a beginning (the Big Bang) therefore it must have a cause (God).

The universe can't come from nothing because that is impossible. If you have nothing, you will only end up with nothing, Therefore God exist, because he is the something where the universe came from

Some atheists try to use quantum fluctuations to suggest that something can come from nothing, but this is absurd.

Scientists used to believe that maggots used come spontaneously on meat, but this was proven wrong when it was shown that flies laid eggs on the meat, and that is where the maggots came from.

The same thing with quantum fluctuations they may have a cause and must be coming from something otherwise they would be defying the laws of logic. Therefore God exists

2. The Transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG)

The laws of logic exist (the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of excluded middle) They are immaterial and are not found in matter and are not made of atoms. They are transcendental and part of God's nature, and God has given us the sense of logic.
Atheism is irrational because it can't explain logic or the laws of logic, Therefore God exists.

3. Biogenesis. We humans the smartest creatures on the planet have yet to create a single cell, so how can nature which is less intelligent then us create a cell, and how can a cell create itself? Life only comes from life, so how did it all begin. It began by God creating us.

4. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. He was an uneducated arab, but somehow he revealed to us the qur'an which contains knowledge ahead of its time, such as the Big Bang and all other scientific theories recently proved. God gave him this knowledge

All these reasons prove God...

http://www.alislam.org...
Tachibana_Otaku

Con

As Con I'll first start off by refuting your points. Since I have very little space I'll have to make my arguments short and I apologize.

Anyways, the cosmological argument has been done to death. First off, the big bang only describes how the universe expands, not its origins. We have other theories for that, some of which do allow for things to pop into existence from nothing without breaking any rules, especially since spacetime isn't bound by conservation laws. Second, you don't explain God's origins. What caused the first cause? Did God create himself? Why can't the universe do so? Third, just because we don't know the exact origin of the universe, doesn't mean you can give up and say its magic.

On the transcendental argument, let me refute it with an analogy. The number 4 is "transcendent." It isn't a 'thing' that 'exists'. It cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4, the shape we currently call a square would still have the same number of sides it has now. The abstraction of the number 4 is conceptual, but the concept isn't dependent on a transcendent mind for the real world underpinning of the concept to remain true.

Also, atheism doesn't explain logic because atheism is only a lack of a belief, it doesn't make any positive claims. The origins of logic however are rooted in survival strategies and can be explained.

As for abiogenesis, we can't create modern cells because nature can't. Early cells were very different from those today. Early cells barely qualified as life, and were more similar to viruses than anything. We can't create those because we don't know their exact structures. Also, manually controlling individual atoms is very hard. In nature however, the basic chemicals for life form naturally and form in layers. Even theistic scientists agree that in the end life is only chemistry.

Your fourth point isn't even an argument. A book of fables is not proof.
Debate Round No. 1
tahir123

Pro

Where did the Big bang come from? If it came from nothing, why don't we see elephants pop into existence from nothingness? Something can't come from nothing, otherwise we would observe it at a macroscopic scale and would see chaos. Science is always changing so quantum fluctuations are probably coming from something also.

And yes Transcendental abstracts may not require any minds, but they are part of God's transcendental nature, Both God and the laws of logic transcend our reality, therefore they contradict materialism, which says only matter and energy exist. The Law of noncontradiction isn't made up of matter or energy, therefore There is a reality beyond the physical and God also exists there because He gave us the sense of logic.

If life is only chemistry we would have created a cell now, but we haven't, how then could it create itself? It can't. We don't observe it in nature also, life only comes from life.

and the final point was a point. The quran is not a book of fables, it is a book on science. It talks about the Big Bang, black holes, the expansion of the universe, life needing water, and extraterrestrial life before anyone even thought about these concepts. How can an uneducated man such as the Holy Prophet peace be upon him, come up with these concepts if He didn't even know what science was and lived in a time the earth was believed to be flat? Where did the knowledge in the quran come from? It is not like the bible, it hasn't been changed. 1400 years ago it answered question we are thinking about now. Have you read the quran? If not read it, and do research and you will see it is full of knowledge and proves that some higher being (God) inspired it. If not meet it's challenge, produce another chapter like it?

http://www.alislam.org...
http://www.alislam.org...
Tachibana_Otaku

Con

If you look at the uncertainty principal and other quantum models you can see why the quantum fluctuations don't occur on the macroscopic world. When you have a large number of particles the uncertainty decreases. Quantum fluctuations could occur in the macroscopic world, however the chance of that happening is too small. You could just one day walk through a wall, but the chance of that happening due to requiring each individual particle to phase is so low that its not even considered as possible. Quantum mechanics are very difficult, and fluctuations have been recorded and it is likely they will help understand the origin of the universe. But even though our understanding is small, you can't give up and say magic.

Logic is not beyond an explanation is science. Logic is a result of millions of years of evolution, making simple detection of patterns and stimuli into more complex thought by introducing memory. Logic does not transcend any reality because logic is nothing more than using our senses and imagination (which is a remix of memories) to connect memories together. Logic is also still a part of the brain's functions, and thus energy/matter itself. There si no contradiction. Logic doesn't prove God because you don't need a God to have logic.

As for chemistry and life, as a Biochem student I know this well. First off, manipulating molecules is hard and time consuming. By the time you finish enough molecules others would have broken down or reacted with something. However, early life was not anything like modern life. Hell, it was barely life since it didn't have a metabolism. We don't know the exact structure of these early cells so we can't recreate them, however we can recreate the early cell walls and so can nature. The Urey-Miller experiment shows this.

The Quran is not a book of science. If I had enough space to type I'd go over it, but 2000 characters is very constricting. The "science" of the quran is very vague, even in the original Arabic.
Debate Round No. 2
tahir123

Pro

God is eternal. The universe either came from nothing or something eternal. Logic proves something can't come from nothing. Science is always changing, Quantum fluctuations are probably coming from something, which is more logically sound.

You just admitted that logic doesn't exist since you said it evolves. There has to be an absolute sense of logic for it to be real, otherwise contradictions would be real. The fact that the laws of logic are absolute proves there is an absolute being which gave us the sense of logic.

Whatever was the first life form, we should be able to make it since it could make itself. The very fact that we can't make the first life form proves that it couldn't make itself, therefore there has to be a creator to life whom is more intelligent than us.

The quran does talk about the Big Bang in verses 21:30-31, "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" How did an uneducated man say that 1400 years ago, when science was never even fully developed let alone talked about the big bang.

also a new point, free moving electrons, Who is controlling them? God.
http://www.alislam.org...

All these facts prove that God exists. In order for you to win this debate you have to prove something can come from nothing, create life from non life, show me the law of noncontradiction physically, and explain to me how the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him came up with the quran, and produce a chapter like the quran. If you can't do that you lose the debate, no matter how many human votes you get. Blessings
Tachibana_Otaku

Con

One of the supported theories in physics is that the universe has a total of zero energy. Positive energy is the traditional form, and negative energy in the form of gravity. Since there is a net of zero, popping into exisence from nothing violates no laws of physics. Now quantum flucations do occur, however for only short period fo time since the particles born are almost instantly destroy each other, however the lower the total energy of the feild where it takes place the longer the system can last. With zero energy to start, the system can last forever as it is now. Also, God being eternal? Why not skip a step and say the universe can be eternal. Since dark matter is not fully understood, it is still possible for the universe to go a series of big bangs and big crunches, making the universe eternal as well.

I never said logic doesn't exist, only that it has a natural origin due to evolutionary means. Now, remember that contradications can exist in logic, however they never occur in nature. Only a fallible mind can create a contradication, which can only exist in the mind due to a logical fallacy. Also, simply having logic doesn't mean God gave it to us, logic could, and is, be nothing more than a naurally occuring thing.

The reason we can't create life is because of two reasons. The first is that we don't exactly know what the form of that first life form was, so we can't copy it. The other is that is takes too much time, and we can't create everything fast enough before other parts react with something else.

I already told you why the Quran is incorrect on the Big Bang and Black Holes in the comments. I don't have enough space to do it again. Also remember that the term heavens can refer to the sky, and really the universe. Hell, the Quran thinks the Earth is flat.

Free moving electrons? They are free only because they are not attached to atom, they still obey laws like electromagnetism.

Nothing you said proves God, but only shows an ignorance of science.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
And read the ENTIRE quran and pray to God before you call it fiction

Don't listen to islamophobes and wikiislam

Science is the work of Satan

Pray to God just give it a try you need God
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
Are you a scientist? Scientists work for the government and the government lies. They lied about the Kennedy assassination and 911 so they could be lying about science. I don't believe in NASA or Osama Bin laden's second death so I don't believe in science I think it's just a lie made up the illuminati to lead us away from God it could even be the work of the devil or Satan

Try praying to God or your science and then see what happens that's the only advice I can
give you.

God bless you
Posted by Tachibana_Otaku 3 years ago
Tachibana_Otaku
And why the hell would I cry over a the story of an idiot who never wrote anything and made alot of stuff up. Everything in the Quran is extremely vague and was avalible to Muhammad. For example, Muhammad had a travel companion who had studied Egypian and Greek medicine, and could have simply told Muhammad of his ideas, which match what the Quran says. Any actual science in the Quran was already known in other parts of the world and had reached Arabia. Second, all the claims of having modern science in the Quran is idiotic. You really like saying the Big Bang, so let me tell you why its not the modern theory of the expanding universe. First, simply saying that the universe is expanding does not mean anything. That's not really a huge idea, especially when he could have been refering to the sky or Heaven, since for all anyone knows God may still be creating things if he existed. Unless the Quran talks about things like the acceleration of universe due to dark matter, or cosmic background radiation, or gravitational singularities or basicly any actual part of the theory, then its not really the big bang. Also, the same applies for evolution or black holes. Simply saying something really vague which may have been refering to something else hundreds of years ago doesn't mean anything unless it includes actual science like Hawking Radiation or genetics. The Quran says the Earth is flat, like manny religions did and at the time. The only information in the Quran is what was avalible at the time.

I also find it pretty funny is you think I accept whatever scientists say without a doubt. Science first off is peer reviewed, especially by people who don't like your idea. If it gets published, it means it has a good reason to be considered. The Quran however gets told because its old and it commands you believe it. Science has no authority, only experts. Science can be wrong and thats good, because it means we aren't idiots. The Quran is a fictional book, and I'm done with y
Posted by Tachibana_Otaku 3 years ago
Tachibana_Otaku
The particles don't actually communicate. If I shine a photon through a crystal it can break into a pair of entangled photons. The total quantum states of the two particles must add up to the original state. So if a particle originally has a spin of 0, then one particle must have a spin of 0.5, and the other -0.5. After this point, which is instanteous, the particles will begin to interact with the enviroment and become untangled. The particles are only entangled for a brief period of time bucause they are conserving quantum laws, but once they are affected by an outside source they become untangled. The idea of communicating is done almost like a code. Any actual transfer of information has a speed limit so to speak.

As for flucutations, the antimatter is annilihated along with the normal matter very quickly. They exist long enough for us to luckily measure, but in the end both the matter and antimatter cease to exist. In a pre-big bang scenario where the energy of universe/system is low the particles could exist longer (just how in current conditions the time of existence differs on where you are in the universe) and thus could produce the energy for an expansion. Going into any more detail would require extensive mathematics and would also require you to understand quantum theories, and you don't.

Finally, those websites are biased, but by reality. So what if they hate islam? The points could till be valid. Maybe not every one, but some are, even when you look at the arabic text. You also have to remember that Arabic is not a perfect language and has room for problems in interpratation. Especially since language changes over time. The meanings during the time it was written is in some cases definately different than how we would read it today. What we might currently read as the universe might just be refering to the sky, and based on what the book says, it definatly looks that way. The idea of the heavens were often used to refer to the sky.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
But how do the particles affect each other instantly? And about quantum fluctuations they are created with antimatter pairs where is the anti matter?

And those websites you posted about the quran are biased and were written by Islamic haters they are not reliable you are pretty much quoting terry Jones and all your arguments can be debunked using the quran in the Arabic language

Read the life of Muhammad you will cry when you read it

Science can be wrong and I do think for myself rather than believe everything scientists say

And if you have doubt about the quran produce even a chapter like it and explain to me where prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him found out about the big bang

Open your mind and stop believing scientism
Posted by Tachibana_Otaku 3 years ago
Tachibana_Otaku
Le sigh. First off, the particles don't communicate, we use the reactions as a potential way to interperate. Here's entanglement simplified. Let's say you have a particle with a spin of 0, and it decays into particle A and B. Particle A has a spin of 0.5, but since the original spin was zero, Particle B must have a spin of -0.5 in order to avoid breaking a conservation law. Since the two states of the particles depend on each other (they can't be the same) we call them entangled. It's the same idea with momentum and other principals that involve conversation laws. Other factors will distort such things, but if you put the two objects in a controlled enviroment then by knowing the spin or momentum of one, you know the spin or momentum of the other. We can currently do this in a lab and have used such particles to communicate very basic codes. Of course it si rediculously expensive so its not a public option yet. The actual reason for the particles communicating across such distences has alot of mathematical terms and relies on the wavefunctions of the particles and is a little too complex to describe at a basic level.

And you kind of just proved you have no idea what you are talking about and that you don't really have the intellect to think for yourself. Science can not be a lie by the definition of what it is. IT is an examination of facts and any errors in the current knowledge fo the universe is brutally destroyed in peer review. Weak arguements may appear but the actual data and based conclusions have to be right or else you'll lose any credibility you have. Besides, it's funny you call Science a lie when you believe in a book of desert fables and refuse to even look up the errors in your book because the book tells you its perfect. That's the thing about religion, it makes humans into such great drones.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
Science is a lie and answer my question how do particles communicate with each other faster than light?
Posted by Tachibana_Otaku 3 years ago
Tachibana_Otaku
I'm done trying to explain science to you since you obviously have no idea how it works or even what it is. Science is not speculation. Science takes observable facts and finds out there cause, functions or whatever, but it all relies on evidence and testing. You idea is not a theory because it makes no predictions, has no evidence, does not meet the burden of proof, and can be shown to be just plain wrong. That goes for both your pathetic New Age understanding of qunatum mechanics and Islam.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
How do you know the scientists and there technology aren't wrong about quantum fluctuations and they have a cause?

If logic is relative then it doesn't exist the same with morality

And entangled particles can instantly affect each other how is that possible? My theory is they are all one and space and time is an illusion my theory is as good as Albert Einstein.

A lot of science is just speculation.
Posted by Tachibana_Otaku 3 years ago
Tachibana_Otaku
Of course you can't see a fluctuation, it occurs on the scale of electrons, however we can measure them using our current technology.

One person who converted from islam to atheism after reading the quran in arabic? Abdullah al-Qasemi, Taha Hussein, Aroj Ali Matubbar, and a few thousand non famous individuals.

I never said logic doesn't exist, it simply has a natural origin. It's a natural biological process. Second, morality doesnt exist as some individual things, however we have the social contrat, also known as the legal system. We also have emotions such as guilt and fear. Morality never existed, but we still had moral and immoral actions. Animals are the exact same way.

And you really don't understand quantum mechanics do you... Quantum entanglement is real and has been measured and is currently being studied for use. It is consistent with all forms of quantum mechanics and does not ever suggest space and time don;t exist. The idea that it does, or that it supports the New Age stupidity is a result of a poor understanding of qunatum mecahnics. And based on your horrible understanding of all science this doesn't surprise me.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
tahir123Tachibana_OtakuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had BOP, but his arguments ended up as arguments from ignorance. Arguments to CON. No points for sources because, while PRO did provide one link, it isn't clear what point it is supposed to be supporting.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
tahir123Tachibana_OtakuTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: It was difficult to give points for this debate. Pro referenced a source, and Con did not. Pro gets a point for sources. Since the BOP was on PRO, and his arguments did not logically flow to meet meet the BOP I give CON argument points, but mostly because PRO had BOP and needed a stronger presentation.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
tahir123Tachibana_OtakuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to understand on a basic level the scientific ideas s/he was talking about, such as the big bang and quantum mechanics. Con didn't really have a cohesive argument placed before him/her to refute.