Does God exist
Debate Rounds (3)
1_who created the bigbang ?
_this is a really simple Q that i ask you,now your going to start talking about the multi universe, ok why not ? i support the idea of the multiverse thing, but who created the first big bang ? who created the first universe ?
2_the universe is too good to be a random
_the universe is beautiful,organized and with no mistakes,and it is impossible to make such a thing with an explosion with no mistakes, did you see ever bill gates throwing a grenade and creating a very well done pc ? i don't think so.
as a muslim i believe in the bigbang cause it is mentioned in our book before 1400 thousand years ago, with other scientific verses,theres over 6000 verse but only 1000 that talks about science,but the quran isn't a book of science but it's a book of signs
Looking forward to a respectable and engaging debate!
Your first question is, "who created the bigbang?"
Not sure if you are able to see this, but there is a logical fallacy here and it is because you assume that 1) the big bang was created, and that 2) it was done by a person "who."
A more proper version of the question would be, who or what caused the big bang to happen?
To this I would respond, with the inescapable conclusion that we do not fully know enough to speak confidently about what did. Modern Physicists posit various theories such as the Multiverse or a Quantum Vacuum but these hypotheses are still in the infancy of their development. As is our understanding of physics and quantum mechanics.
I am of the opinion that it's rather absurd to put forward a simple philosophical argument, and conclude that God is the only answer and necessary being when there is just so much we clearly do not know about an event that occurred 13.8 billion years ago. You have to understand that we are a young species, only beginning to learn about this universe we inhabit in the past few thousand years with our limited and often biased intellect. To claim to know the origin of the universe (what happened prior to the big bang) comes with a tremendous burdens of proof as the greatest minds in the world struggle with these questions and conclude we don't know enough yet.
As to your second statement, you assert the following:
"The universe is too good to be random."
The word "good" is quite subjective, but I will narrow it down to your additional remarks in that you believe it to be, "beautiful, organized and with no mistakes."
I will agree with you that this universe we find ourselves existing in leaves me often awestruck at it's majestic beauty. However, the emotional response would be to conclude that the night sky or a beautiful mountain is the product of some grand design. The rational response would be to understand that mountains and mountain ranges are formed via Plate Tectonics.
For example, the Rocky Mountains of North America were formed over a period of time from about 70 million years ago until 35 million years ago when the Kula and Farallon Plates began to suduct underneath what we now call North America and with a series of pulses and further glaciation, the beautiful mountain range we see today exists.
In regards to stars, these are formed when dense molecular clouds in space collapse on themselves (via gravitational collapse) to such a density that the hydrogen heats up to as hot as 100 K degrees and forms First Hydrostatic Core.
These are simply a couple of examples of beautiful environments we find in nature, but they are actually caused by imbalance and instability within nature. As a molecular cloud in hydrostatic equilibrium would never form into a cloud unless influenced by another force (such as a super nova) or in it's formation out of balance.
Perhaps when you look at a picture of the Milky Way or another spiral galaxy, you might marvel at how designed and organized it appears to be. However, if we were to argue that this universe was meticulously organized and designed by an intelligent and rational being this would be a consistent observation. Which happens not to be the case, as is demonstrated by the existense of "irregular galaxies," which have no apparent shape or structure.
In fact, order within the universe can only arise out of disorder it seems as the universe was birthed from a massive explosion we call the Big Bang, and planets and other stars are continually formed today only out of the remains of former gas giants that went super nova and created vast nebulae to act as a sort of "star nursery."
This statement of yours also implies and presumption of intent as it takes either poor judgement or an act that is in error to make a mistake. Though, I will still address this specific contention of yours by also presupposing that there is an intelligent designer, to see if the evidence actually fits that conclusion.
My argument against this contention is fairly simple and rests on two points, random genetic mutations that cause the organism to die and extinctions.
98% of all orgnaisms that have inhabited the Earth over it's 3.5 billion years of life existing have now gone extinct. There have even been 5 Mass Exctinction Events, including the meteor that caused the extinction of the Dinsaurs about 66 million years ago.
If we were to infer some kind of intelligent design behind this, we could not therefore conclude that there is a "good", "decent", or "benevolent" God behind it. If these events were occuring as natural events within nature, with no intent behind them then intent cannot be inferred and thus no mistake was made, just perhaps something humans might regard as "tragic" (although the last extinction event lead to the rise of Mammals).
2. Random Genetic Mutations.
"Sickle cell anemia is the result of a point mutation, a change in just one nucleotide in the gene for hemoglobin. This mutation causes the hemoglobin in red blood cells to distort to a sickle shape when deoxygenated. The sickle-shaped blood cells clog in the capillaries, cutting off circulation."
This is an example of an extremely deadly disease caused by a random genetic mutation, in fact as this linked source states, if the person only has one copy of the mutated gene it protects against malaria. Thus demonstrating that the randomness is subjectively beneficial and also further demonstrates that if intent could be inferred it would not reflect kindly on the designer who had set the life of mankind and other species so fragilely set on such random causes.
Does the Qu'ran make scientific predictions?
In your opening statements you also alluded to (and provided no sources) for thousands of correct scientific verses within the Qu'ran. I suppose we would have to investigate the individual texts based upon the original language as well as looking into it's historical interpretation, eisogesis is all too easy with ancient ambiguous texts.
Let's say that the Qu'ran is correct with all 6,000 of it's scientific verses. What would this conclude? Does this really demonstrate that Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet? Hardly, with the non-specific nature and ambiguity of religious texts (especially concerning "scientific things") makes assurance on the matter a poor justification for knowledge and thus should only be met with a feeling of peculiarity.
Also, if you make these verses claim scientific truths then that makes them falsifiable. Would you want to discuss if certain verses in the Qu'ran are scientifically false according to modern discoveries?
My contention is not, God does not exist, I do not think such assertions are appropriate or justifiable. My contention is that the argument for Pro does not know if God exists or not, but rather has a strong opinion and stance of faith on the matter and then looks for evidence to support his conclusion so as not to convince himself, but others.
 http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://www.nytimes.com...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://web.uvic.ca...;
[5,6,8] http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...;
 http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://genetics.thetech.org...;
Nursultan forfeited this round.
Extension of my previously unanswered argument as my opponent forfeited the last round.
Nursultan forfeited this round.
My opponent seems to have completely abandoned their initial contention, or has been inconvenienced to the point of being unable to respond.
At any rate, my arguments have gone unaddressed. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
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.