The Instigator
reasonablethought22
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 36395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

reasonablethought22

Pro

First round is acceptance. I want actual scientific backing from my opponent as to why God wouldn't exist.
Duncan

Con

I accept, although I do not require science at all to prove my case. I will explain everything next round. After you, instigator.

Awaiting your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
reasonablethought22

Pro

This debate will require scientific thought. It's a debate on science, not pure philosophy. Nor is this a debate on religion, just the existence of a supreme being, I may use fragments of the Bible purely for historical purposes. Having said that:

William Lane Craig (PhD and Professor) had said that empty space is not nothing. A void (or empty space) is still space, even though empty. It is still a dimension. Now a dimensionless state is nothing, empty space is something. According to Scotus Dun’s (Oxford graduate and scholar) argument of causes and effects there has to be a cause for an effect. An endless amount of causes (like the universe always existing) is impossible. In ancient Greece there was once a god named “chaos”, which literally was nothing. But they treated it as a god (or a supreme being) because it led to the creation of the other gods. Now scientifically, the universe happened when “nothing” began to vibrate and created a void, and continued vibrating until a small microscopic particle called the Higgs Boson (aka “the God particle”or particle that gives everything mass) exploded and created the expansion of the universe which led to the creation of 9 dimensions. 8 spatial and 1 temporal. Which led to mass but technically did not create mass because mass is positive and gravity is negative. So the total amount of mass and gravity equals out to zero, so it still follows the law of conservation of mass. Keep in mind before the big bang, time (the temporal dimension), did not exist. And after the big bang height, width, and depth were created, as well as time, which were 4 of the said dimensions. So as the universe expanded it created atoms which eventually fused and created suns and planets. One of which planet was earth. And the first life forms arose (cyanobacteria); which later led to humans. Now genetically all humans can be traced back to one male and one female, and in the book of Genesis the first humans were one male (Adam) and one female (eve). And the Dead Sea scrolls do not rule out evolution. In fact they support it. In the book of Enoch it describes Giant’s that walked the earth before and alongside humans, which supports fossil evidence of human evolution. Now explain to me how 5,000 years before genetic testing people knew that humanity started with one male and one female. Also describe how the Greeks would know about the vibration that led to the creation of the universe, even naming it, before modern science. And finally how can you explain how “nothing” can vibrate and lead to the something before TIME even existed? There scientifically had to have been someone to create that effect, because an effect can’t happen without a cause, it’s scientifically impossible. Plus the laws such as conservation of mass and physics are organized, and the Universe is spontaneous, and scientifically only intelligent life can set laws. Like Isaac Newton and John Scotus Duns both said that no cause can happen without an effect, and “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” sounds familiar doesn’t it? Because without a cause there can be no effect, and there can be no endless amount of causes. How can you say that the universe created itself? Not only does that go against John Scotus Duns argument, Newton's laws of motion, but even Einstein ruled out atheism. So unless you can explain exactly how and what created the universe atheism is invalid. I suggest you watch the youtube vid I posted at the bottom of my sources. Something will not and has not ever been created from nothing.





http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://plato.stanford.edu...


Duncan

Con

Duncan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
I thank the other debaters for their vigilance and strong sense of justice. There are several debaters on the site who pose impossible challenges or advertise themselves (and their poetry), and the only counterbalance is people such as yourselves. You have my gratitude.
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
In the Round One comments the Instigator copied and pasted William Lane Craig. He makes the argument that " Something will not and has not ever been created from nothing". I am throwing a RED FLAG on that whole argument as inconsistent. This rule for the creation of the universe must also apply to God otherwise we have created a new rule that makes an exception for God, which is not allowed to be applied to the rest of the universe. If God does not have a creator, then we could just skip the need for God and say that the universe did not need a creator either. Some people try to argue that the complexity of the universe requires a creator --- but wouldn't that creator have to be one terrifically complex being as well and thus could also not have arisen from nothing? So back at the Instigator -- unless you can explain So unless you can explain exactly how and what created GOD, then theism is invalid. Scientific method is required in the explanation as required by your rules. By the way William Lane Craig is an American philosopher of religion, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is not a scientist and his rantings are not scientific.
You didn't even follow the rules you set up for the debate. You cannot require scientific proof from the contender and ignore that requirement yourself.
RED FLAG RED FLAG RED FLAG
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
Duncan - You should not have accepted this set up of the question. The Burden of Proof should be upon those claiming that God does exist. How would anyone collect data on something that does not exist in order to "scientifically" prove it?
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
Orangatang - I agree with you post below. The Burden of Proof must be on the one who claims that God does exist. Moreover - I would make the challenge that he does exist AND is somehow involved in any meaningful personal way with people or this earth at present.
The ones who believe in God need to show "scientific" proof of THAT!
It is not possible to show scientific evidence of non-existence. DUH!
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
There is no evidence that could possibly show that nowhere in the universe does a God exist. But with the same reasoning, there is no evidence that would show that a unicorn does not exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, it is up to the theist to show proof of a God, as it is a positive claim. The atheist does not say that there is proof that no God exists absolutely, rather they show that the evidence and argument for a God are not sufficient or compelling.
No votes have been placed for this debate.