The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
BigSky
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Does a God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
qopel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,331 times Debate No: 30571
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (193)
Votes (3)

 

qopel

Con

I am an Agnostic Atheist looking for a Theist to have an honest and fair debate about the existence of God. I'm not looking for a game of semantics.
If you have the guts to take this debate, you must abide by the following:
1. No use of Wikipedia. You can't use Wikipedia on a college paper. I won't tolerate it here.
2. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean.
3. No references to Creationist websites. Creationists are con-artists and their made up nonsense isn't worthy of consideration.
4. No adding new arguments as you go along. State your arguments in the first round and be prepared to defend them later. Do not try to flood the last round with new arguments that I don't get a chance to address. That's dishonest and cheating.

Now the definitions of words that will undoubtedly, be used:
God: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Agnostic Atheism: The lack of the belief of a God. An Agnostic Atheist does not claim that there is no God.
Scientific Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is NOT the same as the definition of a layman's theory. The theory of evolution is just as valid at the theory of gravity.
Evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. It has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.
Exist: To have actual being in the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
Space: A distance that separates matter or energy. Space itself is "something" and can contain within it, both matter and energy.
Nothing: The lack of everything.*
* NOTE: There has never been a physical "nothing" for anyone to examine. Any claim that something can't come from nothing is not valid because it can not be proved. There has never been a nothing for anyone to examine for something to come out of.
NOTE: "Con" is not an assertion that there is no God. "Con" is only a non belief that a God exist. "Pro" will have the burden of proof that there is, in fact, a God that exists. It is impossible for anyone to prove something doesn't exist. It is, however, possible to prove something does exist. If you take on this debate, you will have the burden of proof.
NOTE: Please don't resort to the use of logical fallacies.

I will start off by saying I do not believe a God exists. If you want to claim that there is indeed a God, You may take on this debate and provide EVIDENCE for such a God. If you can not provide sufficient evidence, the default position of there not being a God will result. That is the null hypothesis.
BigSky

Pro

You are very persistent. I will accept, make your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Con

Science can"t prove there is no God, but science can prove things in the Bible are false.
Science has given us answers that directly contradict what the Bible claims. A
good example would be the story of Adam and Eve. The Bible claims Adam was created from a pile of dirt, and then, for some reason, God needed a body part, like a rib, in order to create Eve.
Evolution is a proven fact. It"s not "just a theory" as many falsely claim it is. A scientific theory, as opposed to the layman"s definition of a theory, is the highest form of proof that science has to offer. The entire fossil record that can be measured with various forms of radiometric dating, along with DNA and other scientific evidence, overwhelmingly proves that humans did evolve from lower life forms. Either it was a pile of dirt, or a long process of evolution. Only one of those has been proven true.
If anyone wants evidence for any scientific theory, it can be obtained. People
are not expected to read science books and blindly believe what they say, like the Bible. Most anything in a science book can be proven with experiments or a math equation.
The use of logical fallacies, and claiming science isn't true, will hinder a person
from being able to learn about what is really true.
It"s one thing to use God as an answer for things that we don"t have answers to,
yet. However, Creationists will insist that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years
old, that man lived with dinosaurs and that evolution is a hoax. Some will even go
as far as to suggest the Devil planted fossils in order to trick scientists!
Those who ignore the scientific evidence in order to continue to believe what
the Bible claims, without evidence, are being ignorant.
Atheism is the default position. If you don"t choose to believe, you end up not believing. That"s why it"s not a choice. Atheism is not a belief. It"s a non-belief. You can"t turn your back on something you don"t believe to exist. If there is nothing, which direction do you turn your back to?
A good way to explain this is with the American justice system. When somebody
is accused of a crime, it"s the prosecution"s burden of proof to prove him/her guilty. Nobody is required to prove they are innocent. We are all considered innocent until proven guilty. That"s the default position no matter if we committed
the crime or not. It"s just like the default position to not believe in a God, no matter if there is a God or not. The jury can either decide that there is enough evidence to claim guilt or they can say there isn"t enough evidence, in which case they claim "not guilty". No jury is required to claim somebody innocent. If there is exculpatory evidence that can prove innocence, like a solid alibi, the person
shouldn"t be on trial to begin with. They can be found "not guilty" and still have
committed the crime. (OJ Simpson might be a good example of that). It"s not
black or white.
In order for something to be believed to be true, you need evidence to back it
up. Atheism is the default position, just like innocent is the default position. You"re innocent until guilt is proven and you"re an atheist until God is proven. This only works if you actually care that what you believe in is actually true. If you just want to claim somebody guilty without evidence or claim there is a God without evidence, then what"s really true doesn"t matter.
If somebody makes a claim that there is a God, the burden of proof is on
them to prove that there is a God. If you really care about what you believe in as
being true, you can"t just believe things on faith. If we did that, we would believe
all kinds of whacky things, like aliens, Big Foot, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. With
faith, you could make anything up (like a flying spaghetti monster) and claim it is
true, just because you believe it. Saying, "Since you can"t prove it not true, then it
must be true" is a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance. That kind of
logic just doesn"t work.
Nobody knows for sure that there isn"t a God. Of course there"s a chance that there is one, just like there is a chance that there are other things we can"t prove. The thing is, you can"t go around making claims that things exist that you can"t prove. If you want to believe in unicorns, for example, you have the freedom to do so. That doesn"t make them real and you have no justification for claiming them as real, just because you believe in them. All you can claim is that you believe they are real, not that they are real.
BigSky

Pro

My opponent has given me very little to work with, but since he is a man of science, I will be using science to prove the existence of God.

Before I begin I would like to let my opponent know that other than a few websites he gave me last night, he has not proven that someone can be both atheist and agnostic. That is not what this debate is on, but I’ll show you something a friend showed me:

Note the difference between,
1) I believe not-X
and,
2) I not-believe X (I DIS-believe X)

It's subtle but it makes all the difference in meaning where you place the negation.

#1 entails a claim to reality and so demands justification.
#2 is just a personal description of one’s psychology... which is irrelevant in a debating context- for we're still left wondering if God exists! (This would land us in agnosticism at best.)

Thus #2 just a redefinition of agnosticism married to a psychological state in order to avoid claiming #1... Which would entail a burden of prove that the atheist wants to avoid. It’s a clever debate strategy but it is ultimately intellectually dishonest.


I have agreed not to debate my opponent on his theological status, so I will stop doing so now.


Over the past few days, I have heard one statement quite frequently. “Prove it…Prove a heaven exists…prove a God exists.” The fact is that no human being can prove anything; no one was there when the universe came into being. [1] A creationist cannot prove God created the universe, and an atheist cannot prove that the universe randomly came into being. So, and I’m sure atheists would agree, we need to look at scientific evidence to make a sensible conclusion. So in my opening argument, since my opponent has prevented me from using my faith as “proof,” I will use science.


I will begin by defining the 1st law of thermodynamics.


“In its simplest form, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant – energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Every natural process transforms energy and moves energy, but cannot create or eliminate it. This principle forms a foundation for many of the physical sciences.” [2]


Within this law of thermodynamics is another law called the Conservation of Energy.

This law states that all energy in a closed space must be conserved. [1]

Closed space is a scientific theory that once you have traveled far enough through the universe, you will return the same spot you started at. This means that the universe is, well, closed, and has no connection to anything outside of it, because to scientists, there is nothing outside of it. [3]

Believers in God, while not needing proof of their existence of God, believe in an open space. An open space is the theory that the universe was, and is, influenced by an outside force, a creator. [1] So here is where the evidence comes into play. If we do in fact live in a closed system, where the universe evolved on its own, where did the energy that exists today come from?

There are then only three logical theories that can exist.


1) The theory that all was created without the influence of God. (This contradicts the scientific law of the Conservation of Energy because energy cannot be created, or destroyed.)


2) Everything has always existed for all eternity, which is also impossible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


“The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since.” [4]


3) The third and most likely theory therefore must be the existence of a creator. A creator who created the laws of science, and does not have to follow them. It is the only conclusion that can be made that is not contradictory to itself.


My opponent made several rules that limit the arguments I could make. One was to not use Wikipedia, which I don’t use anyway, and one was that I was not allowed to use creationist websites because they are, “ con-artists and their made up nonsense isn't worthy of consideration.” Another one of his rules was not to be vague when providing definitions; I don’t believe I have been vague. His final rule was that I could not make further arguments after this one and I will respect that.


I anxiously await my opponent's response.


Thank You

[1]- http://www.toptenproofs.com...

[2]- http://www.allaboutscience.org...

[3]- http://www.universetoday.com...

[4]- http://www.allaboutscience.org...
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Con

I want to thank my opponent for finally accepting this debate on my terms.
It may look unfair, but my rules will filter out most of the creationist claims that have already
been proved wrong over and over.

My opponent started out by trying to prove that an agnostic can not also be an atheist.
That has nothing to do with this debate.

Moving on...

My opponent said "The fact is that no human being can prove anything;
no one was there when the universe came into being."

I'd like to point out that it's possible to prove something without being there to see it
happen. For example: The orbit of the former planet, Pluto, takes over 200 years
to go around the Sun. Mankind has not know about Pluto's existence for that long.
Nobody has actually witnessed a complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun, yet it can
be proved that it does.

Nobody alive today has ever seen Abraham Lincoln, but again, we can prove he did, in fact, exist.

I will agree with my opponent that "energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing."

According to this website that explains the Big Bang,
Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot,
infinitely dense, something - a singularity.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

A singularity is not a "nothing". If it was infinitely hot, it had infinitely amounts of energy.
Heat is energy.

My opponent then asked the question, "Where did the energy that exists today come from?"
The answer is the singularity.

That being said, I will conclude that the first theory presented (The theory that all was created without the influence of God.)
is. in fact, the correct one, because it does NOT contradict the scientific law of the Conservation of Energy.

I will however, object to the word "created" and wish to substitute "came into being", because the word
"created" would imply the need of a "creator", which is what this debate is about.

I want to thank my opponent for trying. It's true that without faith, he was forced to use science, which
is really the only way to prove something true. Faith is just an excuse to believe something without evidence.
BigSky

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for the response.

“I'd like to point out that it's possible to prove something without being there to see it
happen. For example: The orbit of the former planet, Pluto, takes over 200 years
to go around the Sun. Mankind has not know about Pluto's existence for that long.
Nobody has actually witnessed a complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun, yet it can
be proved that it does.”

There is a difference between being able to mathematically calculate the time it takes Pluto to orbit the sun, and what happened before the big bang. That difference is that while man wasn’t present at the time of the big bang, they are present during Pluto’s existence. My opponent said that we are able to Acknowledge Abraham Lincoln’s existence; this is because that there were in fact people on earth during Lincoln’s presidency. They were able to write down historical accounts of Lincoln. Since we do not however have historical accounts of the big bang, only theories, we cannot prove our theories.

“A singularity is not a "nothing". If it was infinitely hot, it had infinitely amounts of energy.

Heat is energy.
My opponent then asked the question, "Where did the energy that exists today come from?"
The answer is the singularity.
That being said, I will conclude that the first theory presented (The theory that all was created without the influence of God.)
is. in fact, the correct one, because it does NOT contradict the scientific law of the Conservation of Energy.”

If we rested on the fact that there is only one law of thermodynamics, then yes, we would be able to conclude that this “singularity” created the universe. My opponent however chooses to completely disregard the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe is in finite. So if that singularity did not have a creator, then it could not have come into being because it couldn’t have been truly infinite. The website my opponent provides even admits that “Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. “

My opponent’s theory is disproven by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If there was a singularity, and I do not deny there was, it couldn’t have had created itself, it couldn’t have given itself infinite amounts of energy. If anything, my opponent agrees that the universe is open, and that God influenced its creation.

Thank You


Debate Round No. 3
193 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Both you and Bigsky are welcome to go visit some comedy websites. I thought people came here to debate, not joke around.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
When you attack a person's actions, it's a personal attack. AKA ad Hominem. Just like attacking how they look or talk.
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
Call as I see it, an ad hom is when you attack a person, not his actions or arguments. Besides, you're the ad hom king bro, calling 16 year olds names across the web. Btw, BigSky told me to tell you that "you make his day."

Seriously though man, you really need to lighten up on here, just because we're on different "sides" doesn't mean we can't joke around and be cool with each other. You're taking things way too serious.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Gosh, you're so personal. Way to use ad hominem attacks.
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
gosh you're so emotional over the dumbest things. lol
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Oh look. Dylip, with another theist vote bomb. I will never debate another theist again.
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
Same thing applies to you bro. Welcome to DDO.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Theists: If I said the sky was blue, you would say it was red on Mars and I used the wrong interpretation of "sky". Then you'd go get some link to a BS website that would show the sky was green. If I came back with proof that it was, in fact, blue, you'd laugh and say I took it out of context. You don't care about truth. You care about how you can BS and twist things.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Well he isn't responding so...
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
It's cool, BigSky. He's scared. I understand. An atheistic worldview is a precious thing... wouldn't want to break it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
qopelBigSkyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter dylip...
Vote Placed by Dylip 4 years ago
Dylip
qopelBigSkyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Seeing as God is almighty and has power over the elements of Earth, Con has made many faulty arguments right away.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
qopelBigSkyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Lack of knowledge does not equate to supernatural sources. There's no valid scientific argument that can explain the existence of a god without also allowing for creation without an intelligent creator.