The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Evolution is a superior explanation for the origin of man and the universe as compared to creationis

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 67015
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Hello BDPershing I would like to challege you to a debate. I can see that you disagree with me so let's not spam the comments section in the other debate. Here you can clearly express all of your points and I will gladly show you why they are invalid. You make the first argument and then I will proceed. :P

Only rules in this debate:

you must finish the debate
you must support evolution as a superior creation explantation
The first 3 rounds we will have constructive speeches (make arguments) and the last round we will recap on our arguments

accept at your own caution and let the games begin :D


Hmm, I accept thee challenge,

First argument:
God summed: the most supreme powerful being one could conceive in thought.

By association, that which can create the creator of god would be considered a true god, correct?
Yet this answer is avoided or simply "Can"t happen".
How can something that"s creates not be created itself?

The question never answered, if creation did happen, and god created it all, who created god?

Creation Origin of life:
????>Created the creator of the creator>Created the Creator>Created God>God created the universe>Creating galaxies>creating solar systems> creating planets> creating life> Creating humans>????

Evolution of Life:
(We Don"t Know)>Big Bang>Galaxies>Universe>solar systems>Planets>life>species>">Humans>???

Science goes by what we do know, which is why evolutionary theory was even considered. We know the universe is expanding forming the Big Bang theory, we know the gases from this explosion formed into galaxies, which formed solar systems, which formed planets, which formed first cellular life, which formed multi-cellular life, which developed into species, which adapted due to climate of the planet into different forms, which became the genetic difference between the first species, which formed mammals, which formed prim apes> which adapted to become homo sapiens, which evolved into what we see today. As for other crap like what created the big bang we simply stat "we don"t know". It"s all theories also it open to change. we evolution/science does not mark the problem solved, simply states "this is what we know so far".

Irrational answering, "God created it all problem solved."

When you don"t know the answer, one simply says "I don"t know" or guesses.

But when it comes to origin, religion (Creation) places the answer on a Being, instead of "I don"t know", and when questioned of "who created God?" the answer is "Not possible, God can"t be created".
Debate Round No. 1


"God summed: the most supreme powerful being one could conceive in thought. By association, that which can create the creator of god would be considered a true god, correct?"

One thing I must make clear is that god is not an entity which is conceivable in our simple and limited minds. He is actually inconceivable in his power and characteristics. Just take one minuet to think about this. Everything you experience, Heat, cold, beauty, music, flowers, this entire earth, this entire galaxy. To say that any person could comprehend that level of power is beyond ridiculous, but unlike you may think. We do not give up, we try and search for answers as to what god is and what he wants, knowing that we will never understand in this lifetime. So no, god not conceivable.

Here is the problem many people run into in this modern day in age. We are trapped in materialism, whether we realize it or not, our lifestyles severely limit our capacity to understand things. Basically, we view things from the "what can I see and touch" perspective, when in reality in order to understand god you must view past the outside world and get in touch with the soul, that is where god is found, connected with, and partially conceived.

Someone who will only believe in god if they see him can never get proof of his existence. God operates outside our laws of physics and time. He has left us here and the only way to know he is real is to view inside of oneself. This is why atheists tend to be stuck in cages, they can only believe things that they have concrete proof in, we have delved deeper and deeper into knowledge but we just keep hitting more and more questions. We discovered a ball substance which made up all things, we later found that this was composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. We delved deeper still and found neutrinos and so forth, we are now looking for the hicks Bozon particle. It is a never ending fractal zoom in which won"t ever provide true meaning in life.

"Irrational answering, "God created it all problem solved."". But when it comes to origin, religion (Creation) places the answer on a Being, instead of "I don"t know", and when questioned of "who created God?" the answer is "Not possible, God can"t be created".

This is the most difficult thing for people to understand. The reason why God cannot be created. When one thinks of god you may think of a black area in space where a man or entity resides, and somewhere far far far away is our universe, or something to that extent. This perception is human in nature and demonstrates how truly reliant we are on location, sight, orientation".other senses. What is absolutely essential to recognize is that God resides (see, even the word resides implies physical location) Outside of Time and Physical space. Is it really an absurd Idea to recognize that the being who created time and space would not be a part of it himself? That he would exist outside of time? This idea is almost literally to much to understand, but you have to realize who we are talking about. The creator of All of life! How that can be true I don"t understand but Know that it is true and it only makes sense despite my humanly limitations. That is why it is impossible for god to have been created, as you say"

Question, how do you account for the Vast worldwide experience of divine experiences in the world?


Inconceivable: it doesn't seem possible, it"s hard to imagine, or it can"t be true.

It would have been inconceivable for early Homo sapiens to understand the world we live in today, but impossible no.

You refer to experience and creation to be "power", it"s simply reality, and you can sit and stare and enjoy how the universe came into this unlikely existence by an unknown origin. But like I said before, science state we don't know yet. While creation simply state a divine being done it. The problem is, we don't know yet claim to have an answer, an answer needs an explanation, not bundling the existence of reality into a word and call it god. Don"t be arrogant and state you know the answer as say its god for you just stated the answer can"t be conceived.
"We discovered a ball substance which made up all things, we later found that this was composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. We delved deeper still and found neutrinos and so forth, we are now looking for the hicks Bozon particle."
Congratulations you finally understand that reality we live is made of physical fabric that is too small to touch.
Humanity does not need to touch, for observing is how we discern the laws and theories of reality, it"s all about logical explanation that's open to change when new information is found reason why all are subject to testing and peer review.
It seems you refer to god as everything encompassing this reality, that I"m guessing means creationists think the dimension is god. It is space, but it is still surrounds everything, which seems what your referring as being the existence of god.
"Question, how do you account for the Vast worldwide experience of divine experiences in the world?"
Define divine experience; I"m sure people have had some trippy experiences that could be perceived as divine, there evidence that when people gather together for the same reason to talk about something that makes them feel good, they will have a nero response from the brain similar to "tingles" is the brain releasing "feel good" brain chemicals. People who have an illness will feel amazing during this, but a couple of hours after their condition will return. Does it mean its god? No, it"s the brain, and in extension is shown the body itself has developed other self-healing mechanics throughout the body.
Ok now back to a question for you, which you have stated before,
"Theoretically if we had a computer which randomly entered in letters for eternity then we would get hamlet in some number of googolplexia...but we don't have a googolplexian amount of time. We have at most 4.54 billion years and while this may seem like a ridiculously long amount of time, it is simply not enough time for evolution on this scale to occur how Evos claim it occurred."
What evidence can you provide to show life can"t develop in 4.54 Billion years?
Given infinite time, and dimensions you would state it is impossible for a big bang to develop life?
During infinite time when would a monkey, with a typewriter, type hamlet, referring to a never aging monkey, who does not get bored. With one monkey and typewriter in a series of infinite dimensions, which one of these monkeys will type out hamlet first?
See in your previous statement you declared there wasn"t enough time, but when you have infinite amount of dimensions that can produce life if a big bang event happened how could you say, in a state of randomness, life couldn"t be formed early? See, given infinite time, mathematically it will happen but one does not know when.
Another idea, what if life development fallows Moore"s Law. Wouldn"t the requirement to get to are current level of life reach quickly enough for you?
There"s still no provided "proof" that states a divine being created the universe and in extension life. You only stated due to existence there must be a god, who therefor made life.
I would also like to ask which Creationism do you believe,
Young Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Progressive creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic evolution.
Another thing you once stated,
"no, it wouldn't; because the divine being of the universe, God, created the earth not "conditions" on a planet and evolution...."
So, you"re ignoring the forming of earth and how it came to be, just some magical being said "poof" earth?
Even though evidence shows the development of earth? Reason why we can say earth is 4.54 billion years old. The planets around us are proof the different courses a planet can take, yet you claim a planet doesn't have conditions during formation that could limit life development? Yet mars who's so similar to earth that we could theoretically make it an earth planet by Terra-forming, didn't develop surface life?

P.S: Origin of all living things dates around when earth was 3.5 billion years old, that's when life started on this planet.
Debate Round No. 2


Creationism explains the creation of the universe more reliably

A.)The Dimensions and creation
The world as we know it is made up of 4 dimensions. 3 of space: Length, Width and height. And 1 dimension of time. When Stephen Hawking calculated various things about the big bang, he found that time had a definite start which was the moment of the rapid expansion from an infinitesimally small point, to the universe we have now, took place. Look around you and think about what you are doing, cars driving by, birds flying...ect. Now take away the dimension of time. When this happens, all things stop and will never move again. Now consider that this is the state of the universe before the big bang, except that there is absolutely no length, width, or height in existence. This fact can be explained in Genesis during the creation of the universe, where all things sprang into existence.

B.) The problem of infinite regression only applies to the atheistic evolutionary model
Atheists have either 2 options confronted with the knowledge that the universe sprang from nothing. Either accept the illogical infinite regression, or believe, using the blind and unprovable faith they so often ridicule, that the universe Has the mechanics behind it, we just don"t know yet. In essence they create a "substitute" god based on a completely unprovable belief. Biblical creation makes more sense however and explains why the infinite regression doesn"t apply. We know that the universe sprang from nothingness, therefore something that is not a part of either of our 4 dimensions must have created the universe, something which exists outside of the dimension of time, something eternal, I bet you guessed it, God. Since the bible was created, it has told us that God is eternal. To name 2 examples, The Psalms speak clearly about God"s eternal nature, affirming, but never defending God"s existence:
"Before the mountains were born or you gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God." 2
"For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." 3

From a causality standpoint, that answer is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause so the real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one. However there are many, many, things beyond our comprehension which are true despite how we feel. The size of the universe may be an example. Another may be the analogy of a 2-d stick figure, trying to understand the 3rd dimension. In essence and over all on this subpoint, I would like to emphasize that atheistic models cant account for the creation of the universe better than creationistic models can and so we should use this as solid proof of god"s existence

Not enough time for evolution to happen on its own, god is needed to have put mankind and other species on earth.

"In the 1970s, Elso Barghoorn, a paleontologist, discovered micro-fossils of bacteria and algae in rocks close to 3.5 billion years old. Deposits representative of organic carbon appear in formations 3.8 billion years old. That is also when the first liquid water appeared on earth, and hence the first time life could survive. All life on Earth is water based. No water, no life, but with water, life was possible. It had only to develop, and develop it did, immediately in the presence of water. There were no "billions of years" for the amino acids to combine randomly into life. "

"Elsewhere in time, even after simpler life forms populated the earth, dramatic "booms" of new life appear. TheCambrian explosion is often cited as a key example, but this is not the only apparent de novo pulse of new life. Denton notes the sudden appearances of angiosperms (flowering plants) in the Cretaceous, like animals in the Cambrian, and about 400 million years ago the fish all appear within some 50 million years, all these appear as sister groups and not as descendants, and a similar appearance pattern fits the amphibia (Denton (ETC) Pages 162-164). So, multiple observations from the fossil evidence speak of appearances without antecedents"without evolution's ancestral life forms."
So suddenly did life arise on Earth that, the theoretical biologist Francis Crick wrote, "Given the weaknesses of all theories of terrestrial genesis [the origin of life on Earth], directed panspermia [the deliberate planting of life on Earth] should still be considered a serious possibility."

Argumentative 'proofs' of God's existence

d. The argument from truth
1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

e. The origin of the idea of god
1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God"an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
6. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
7. But only God himself has those qualities.
8. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
9. Therefore God exists.

f. The world wide general consensus
1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.


The problem of infinite regression can be explained in the creationist model versus the atheistic evolutionary model. God exists outside of time and dimension as has been knows since the bibles writing. I have also provided evidence that evolution doesnt have enough time to happen. As darwins said: evolution does not "jump" but clearly it has. This suggest that God put creatures on Earth, as said in genesis. Finally I have offered some of the most renouned logical proofs on gos's existence. Thank you


So your main argument it seems is due to no good theory of the origin of the universe beside the big bang and lack of explanation of said big bang occurrence, there is god correct?

What we know,
A star collapsing creates a supernova that does 2 things, becomes a white dwarf, or become a black hole.
-We have not found the largest star in the universe and it is possible that an extremely large star exists.
-Black Holes have infinite density and are said to be infinitely small.
-We had no idea where matter went after entering a black hole.

Could this not lead to space fabric ripping and "big bang"ing a universe into existence?
Before you counter with "there are many black holes", well do you know if our dimension is the largest or smallest?

Therefor how the big bang came to be, space rip caused by omega black hole (____ black hole, insert your preferred size here) that funnels matter into this universe causing it to expand in all directions equally. Meaning though black holes are infinitely dense and small the other side is reversed, being infinitely spaced and infinitely vast. During its violent extraction due to being forced threw the black hole matter /atoms/particles will collide forcing themselves together fusing them and creating the first elements.
Now as for this water issue, oxygen is made by fusion, which can be from suns, when supernova occurs the gas gets tossed out into space later forming into water molecules, though there are chances that water vapor exists in the emptiness of space. Some would gather together forming comets or gather on asteroids, spreading this molecules around space. Early earth was too hot for water to reach the surface, as time went on it cooled to point which water could finally exist in the atmosphere as vapor, which formed algae which in return, using carbon dioxide, created oxygen with then would combine and me come h2o. During this process space debris brought more h2o from space and depositing it on earth later accumulating to form the oceans. Reason why the first algae came around .2billion years earlier is because water existed as vapor only later would it start pooling.
Life is only elements when you think about it, as long as these elements exists together life will form.
59% Hydrogen (H)
24% Oxygen (O)
11% Carbon (C)
4% Nitrogen (N)
2% Others - Phosphorus (P), Sulphur (S), etc.

Infinite regression, I don"t see any difference between this and "god", for both applies the notion of infinite existence except one says it repeats over and over, the other supposedly stays the same. Which again no proof can even be given stating god does not change. Though there is something that I could think of that fits this "eternal" existence, which does lie outside dimensions. But intelligent questionable, for that is nothingness the blank space in-between dimensions that has no time nor space or even matter. It is nothing; therefor time can"t be applied to such a thing. So yes I solved it I found the source of god, and it is nothing, the space which nothing exists therefor God does not exist.

Truth, truth is subject to the reality it is applied to; one person"s truth can varies from the other but current truth is based on Knowledge. No one truly knows anything therefor Truth in the term your trying to use is imaginary for it is implying solid fact, but humans currently have assumptions for this reality, but over time it evolved from irrational explanation to more ration approach on existence. Reason why groups of religion will attempt to merge science findings into religion so the religion will seem to make sense.

Idea of God, the concept of god currently used is from the idea of deity(ies) as humans evolved and went from just worshiping the objects in the sky known as the Sun and Moon to creating Deities. They invented a notion these objects were beings, converting them into the first "gods" called deities. It was about something higher, but it was literally "higher" than them, sun gave warmth, light, and protection during the day, while the moon provided moon lit nights which will slowly degrade plunging the world into darkness until the sun raise in the morning. The first humans didn't have an "idea" come into their head saying "It is God", it was more that this ball gives me light and warmth therefor it is divine, while this ball brings cold and predators so it must also be divine. Later the notions of divine grew into many more deities and form the first religions at which groups will either select one god they want to worship on Tuesday or three, or if one is going to war they would asked to be blessed by a war god while asking for other god"s blessing. Due to the myth and legends created to form the images of these deities. It was not something divine it was cultic.

Experience of the "divine", the brain is amazing and it has been around for a long time, it has old outdated sectors and processes that don"t covert well into modern day. First divine experiences were done by shamans using to put it bluntly drugs. Herbs that cause hallucinations they will perform ceremonies to predict the future of "the fore sight". Some cultures came up with the brilliant way of using gas chambers and would get high to tell prophecies, and like I have said before the brain would respond to moments, you know "in the moment" just get carried away and do something. Well it can happen at church also but doesn't mean it"s by god. The brain during a panicked moment when something is scary, will over react and create images that don"t exist, as the image conversion is being done by the brain. People fail to realize we still are animals that have senses and standard reflexes to what feels like a dangerous situation that are automatic. All for the survival like an animal. Give me a "divine" experiences and I can show you the factors that could affect such a situation. For most would be explained by "drugs" or the body, for I really don"t think people understand how the body works and how advance this machinery is. But if life fallows the rate of doubling it should be expected.

Things you still have not provided,
-Divine experience example.
-How life "jumped".
-How life simply spawned into existence, for you simply keep referring to the .2 billion gap that I just gave you an reasonable explanation for such a thing.
-Which creationist view do you prefer?

But we can knock off one thing, god exists outside space but it is called nothing, the blank space between dimensions, therefor, since god is nothing, the "god" everyone refers (almighty, knowing, etc.) to does not exist for nothing can"t know anything, or all powerful can it.

So the god everyone seems to refer to as outside this dimension is the blank space, making him not a being just space.
Debate Round No. 3


Hello, BDPerishing, Here is my rebuttal speech, this has been an interesting match and I thank you for accepting my challenge. May the better debater prosper.

Let's begin...

Black holes

Response to your black holes theory: this evidence is very recent, the article just came out December 19 2014 and finds that black holes cannot exist.

Black Holes Don’t exists

Thania Benios, Dec-19-2014, "Researcher shows that black holes do not exist," No Publication,

“Black holes….don't exist.”…….….“For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity.”……” By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. [END quotes]

The theories that you used to get your responses to my argument really just demonstrate a few of my points. The first of which is that scientists have no idea what happened before the universe began, because it came out of “nothing”. I got this quote from your source:

“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo”

All that scientists have is absurd theories which can never be proven, such as the multiverse theory. The belief in this theory isn’t based on substantiated science and If someone believes in that, or a related, theory they are doing so based off of ‘faith in science’, Blind and Unsubstantiated faith. Which eliminates that from any attack you want to impose on religious explanations.

So overall we can see that the scientific atheist solution is accepted but based on no proof. This lack of proof is something that my opponent often throws at me, yet my argument makes a bit more sense. There has to be a creator to spring things forth from nothingness. A being which resides outside of time and was not created. This eternal creator Must exist in either scenario, except the atheist’s version is unintelligent.

Argument on truth

Here you make the classic statement that Truth is Subjective. Which basically means that truth changes for every person and there is no set truth.

Here is why that can’t possibly be true: The statement ‘truth is subjective’, means that no single truth exists in everybody’s world. That statement collapses on itself inevitably because You Are Making That Statement As a universally true claim, which makes this belief a logical fallacy because according to that very sentence, no universally true claim is real.

The idea that truth is subjective is often derived from the fact that morality is subjective and that beauty is subjective. This is undoubtedly true, because each person will view a crime in a different way, concerning wrong and right. However truth is not subjective which means that the ‘argument from eternal truths’ is still in play


You seem to harbor misconceptions about what I mean when I explain my arguments. For instance I do not think, and most Christians do not think, that God is nothing and everything. I would encourage you to re-read my arguments that I have made, especially in my last response because many points were not considered. Just because god exists outside of time and space does not mean that he is nothing. This goes back to the idea that some are stuck in mental cages and can't see anything beyond material qualities.

"creationists think the dimension is god."

Divine Experiences

You relate my arguments on this matter to nothing more than: "some trippy experiences", and ""tingles" is the brain releasing "feel good" brain chemicals."

According to Wikipedia there are around 4,200 different religions. That is what I mean by divine consensus. Not being high, intoxicated through drugs or social conduct, but inner and deeper knowledge arising from a common unknown divine essence. God. I believe you are unable to account for this fact in the world we live in today.

Hypocritical lack of evidence and existence of faith

Throughout this round, I appear to be the only one who has provided clear and consistent evidence, my opponent has used unsubstantiated theories as well as a hoard of assumptions to construct his case, all while denying the very possibility of a creator because he cannot be shown true with physical evidence. The purpose of debate is to expand one's mind by evaluating and accepting opposing ideas, not by dismissing them, and in this case we can see that his very own claims of lacking evidence applies to the very arguments he promotes.


PSALMS "Before the mountains were born or you gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God." 2
"For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night."

To restate my points I would simply like to state the following.
1.) Science agrees that the universe had to have come from nothing at some point after some cause (see infinite regression)

2.) Science cannot explain and will never be able to explain the existence of the universe based on infinite causes or an atheist ultimate cause. On the other hand, since the bible's creation, it has been know that God is eternal and is not constrained by earthly bounds.

3.) Therefore when evaluating evidence and reason, the theory of creationist origin is superior to that of the atheistic evolutionary origin of man and the universe.


a.) I could most accurately classify my holdings as Day-Theory creationism.

b.)About evolution jumping, see my last arguent and search for "cambiran" in f3, I give examples there.

c.) Life spawning- I don't think that life spawned anywhere, that would be evolution. What must be true is deliberate panspermia

Affirmative Negligence

Through this round, I appear to be the only one who has presented evidence against evolution, while the affirmative has not done his job of showing that evolution is a superior theory for the origin of man and the universe than creationism. In any round the burden of proof is on the affirmative team, and he has failed at upholding this burden by not providing a single piece of evidence from a credible source, promoting evolution, or evolution as better than creationism. For this reason alone the affirmative must lose the debate round, but I believe that even beyond this fact, my evidence and arguments has been systematically superior. I would like to remind my opponent that this is the rebuttal so no new arguments can be made.

Why the Round Flows my Way

1.) The affirmative has not fulfilled his burden of proof

2.) The affirmative has not shown sufficient evidence beyond unsubstantiated analytical argumentation

3.) The affirmative has been unsuccesful in taking down any of my arguments supporting creationism, See: infinite regression, time scale of evolution, logical proofs supporting the existence of god, and divine consensus.

4.) I have responded to all arguments made, have been consistent grammatically and have provided, in my opinion, more logical answers than the Affirmative team

For the reasons provided throughout this rebuttal and the speeches past, I can only see a Negative leaning vote.

I would like to thank everyone who has read through this whole debate as well as my opponent BDPerishing for accepting the challenge and finishing the debate. I would like to also thank anyone who takes the chance to voice their opinion on this matter so that we may determine the victor and strengthen our skills in this art.



Hello TheJunioVarsityNovice, It was a fun debate and let the base argument win.

The source is unreliable:
Every argument you have made up till now is based on the bible, your claims which you refer to as unexplainable have been explained, yet there is one theory for creation and that is God created it all. It has no evidence for this besides explainable questions.

1.The universe coming into existence = Big bang caused by collapsing of a black hole.
2.Life happened too fast for evolution = Life developed over time from the moment the earth cooled enough to allow life to exist.
3.Divine Experiences = Mind tricks and moments that give the people a sense of "divine", later dissipating and returning back to previous state, It"s like adrenaline.
4.The Idea of God = Developed from the objects known as the sun and moon by ancient humans looking for the answer first called "deity/ies".
5.Divine Consensus = tradition of explanation from number 4.
6.Truth is absolute = truth is subject to perception, from two sources who relay their truth we discern the closes explanation to be the truth.
7.The dimension is too vast = if you really think vast/size equals intelligence then there"s no hope for you.

Every problem you presented I have given you a rational answer supported by theories, unlike the answer of "god" which is unexplainable by itself besides stating "He"s Eternal", how is he? Your claim against infinite regression is literally the same as eternal god. For he existed, before he existed and before that he existed, it continues on for eternity. Eternal Regression is what it is for the argument of god. At least science will provide theories on why infinite regression happens and how it occurs.

Though the biggest issue is when one points at this problem that god is unexplainable, you read from the bible, you do know that book is plagiarized correct?

The world written in that book are not 100% from the original writer, why would god speaking to this writer or god himself need to take stories some several thousand years older than time it takes place.
You know a book that is similar to how the bible is written would be the Tales of King Author. Which everyone knows is not a real character, but based on two individuals who were alive at the time.

"According to Wikipedia there are around 4,200 different religions. That is what I mean by divine consensus. Not being high, intoxicated through drugs or social conduct, but inner and deeper knowledge arising from a common unknown divine essence. God. I believe you are unable to account for this fact in the world we live in today."
You mentioned that there are 4200 other religions, well"

Stating there are 4200 religions that believe in god therefor god exist without at least looking at all religions to see if their belief resides in god is really sad.

You have failed to bring one "evidence" that I can"t explain with science. Though you have attempted this, seems they have failed, so we will go to your evidence of black holes nonexistence. Trying to disprove my explanation for your first "evidence" provided.

Why does this not work? For we have seen them, reason why the theory of relativity is so compelling.
"Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, the galaxy NGC 4258, the giant elliptical galaxy M87, and several others. Scientists verified the existence of the black holes by studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, the object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system."

I"ll continue down the list of "evidences" you presented and show how irrational or how they have no backing.

2nd evidence, Life happened too fast for evolution, I have read and reread this claim and found no evidence that could restrict the development of life or support the claim life developed "too fast". Life simply develops at its pace, there is no strict time frame needed for life to develop.

3rd evidence, Divine Experiences, Explainable by how the brain interacts with the world, just like adrenaline can dull pain, increase reaction times, increase strength, yet no one would claim it"s not the brain its god giving a blessing, well actually there would be but modern science in the medical field quickly debunks such a claim.

4th evidence, The Idea of God, Do you really think "god" was originally thought up in the way he"s presented now? There"s been countless gods from the past so how can you assume this god out of the other 3599 is the real one. God is a concept created to explain from ancient rational thought, If this ball gives me light warmth and keeps the predators away it must be divine, if this ball takes away said heat and light and brings predators closer it must be divine. It"s a primitive way of thinking that developed to explain, now we have more rational explanations that don"t require hundreds of gods and it works, so trying to say "No this one is real" is truly irrational for every single other one was found not to be.

5th evidence, Divine Consensus, In through this is a tradition built upon the idea of god, and it indoctrinates kids before they can fallow rational thought and come up with their own belief, allowing the cycle to continue, also the fact the out of the 4200 religions not every single one believes in a creator shows how despite the argument is. "There has to be a god for look at all the religions", sorry but if there were 3599 other gods, I"m sure having 4200 religions kind of proves the unlikelihood of god.

6th evidence, Truth is absolute, No one can discern absolute truth, for truth is based on two accounts which are peered reviewed to come up with the closest explanation of truth. It"s all about perception and if one perception exists then it would be labeled as truth.

7th evidence, Too vast, and 2 + ? = 4, obviously, ? = god, no way it can be anything else, your mistaking something we don"t know yet as evidence of god. We don"t even know if are definition of "vast" even holds up on a universe scale, for it"s, again, all about perception, we could be a size of a penny compared to others. Yet you claim this is the answer?

Creation cannot stand without the bible:
If you wish to propose a theory of a being creating it all then, it must be tested and peer reviewed. Though the only source of this god is the bible, if we use other sources of god we find the god and the characteristics of god varies too widely and don"t support each other. Just like a debate one should present several articles too support one"s side, one would never run in with one and only one article. You have only provided words and explanations from one source and attempted to debunk with technical time or non-peer reviewed theories. Evidence beyond the bible is nonexistent for proof of god, while evolution and science provides extremely large amount of evidence that support it. Creationist rely on the "lack of evidence does not mean there is none", but would you take someone seriously with they kept posting the exact argument and over and over in response to multiple sources?
Irrational belief in god; why the argument for god does not work in this reality.

I fear you have some misconceptions on the origins of your own religion, I have dug and re-dug into the topic and found this god is no different from the others, for he was conceived to unite humanity in a dark time, using a supreme being who will punish you if you don"t fallow, sounds like a parent who likes using a belt. It was good for the time, but it"s a rewrite of other myths and history. I have provided and countered every argument made so far, and could keep countering for there has not been one thing science and evolution cannot come up with an explanation. If religion had its way, we would have stopped at the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe, you will be punished if you go against god, if your raped you need to either marry or pay the husband 50 gold, etc"
So far, the only source given by my opponent is, bible, and quick google search article.

God and the bible are a great story, it gave an answer when people were looking for one, now we as humans have found another way to explain this reality without using god(s), god is getting larger in definition God is the sun and rules over earth>God rules the sky>God rules the heavens> god rules the galaxy> god Rules the Universe> what will happen is when we finally find what created this universe those who believe still, if there is a religion left by then, it the claim "God created it all", regression much and people complain about infinite regression, isn"t the same thing happening with the definition of god? IF you"re willing to believe in god, but unwilling to believe in any of the other 3599 gods, who is it to say the other 3599 gods are untrue? IF you"re willing to believe in god but no other life, then how can you say there is no other life? For not only does the evidence suggest the bible is just a story, previous writings and myth also show that the story is not original at all, in fact is fairly common.

I thank TheJunioVarsityNovice for such a fun topic, was able to dive in again into a topic a have placed on the back burner from the vast about on information provided.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
I'm an atheist by the way, it's on my profile. I just wanted to see how well I could defend the other side of the coin.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
Its just a question, not about play, overall they are relatively good questions, but as time goes on these questions get answered. There is a few philosophy arguments at which I know, for I have taken it, philosophy is all about perception, but does allow oneself to explore many questions if one chooses to do so. I fear though if you did the exploration through philosophy and came to these conclusions, you may have not dived in far enough for arriving at the conclusion of god for everything is really avoiding diving further. But overall I'm enjoying this debate for it is bringing up some questions few have really tried to explore or explain.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
and yes, excluding some of the rhetoric used to 'bias' the claims against reason haha, but in essense I would say those are my claims...And what way did I play wrong? haha :P
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
I will have an final rebuttal soon hopefully I can send it before my trip to south Carolina late tommorow or else I might be in trouble. But we'll see. Sorry for the delay
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
Is that really how you want to play it?
Due to big bang happening from nothing, god is the answer?
Due to water not being present before 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, life was formed by god?
Due to the infinite possibility of creation and recreation from science not having a single source yet, god exists?
Due to the irrationally belief of god is a prefect being and eternal, he exists?
Due to cultures having this idea of something higher than themselves, god exists?
Due to humans wanting answers and coming up with answers they didn't get the answers themselves but from god?
Due to "divine" experience/ claims, god exists?
God cant be found due to him being out side time and space therefor outside this dimension?

Is this your general argument?
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
no problem junior,

And as for you debate 98,

Creationism assumes it must have been intelligent, is there any proof it was? How can someone assume all because the space of are reality is so vast and complex that it had to be intelligent. one could draw one line that separates into 2 and continues this cycle with the new created lines over time it will be a vast network that only some amazing mathematician could have came up with, when all it was, is a child drawing lines with no purpose. Another thing creationism assumes that since it was "designed" it must have a purpose. But did the child making such a vast network, make the network for a purpose? No, the kid simply wanted to draw lines. See when it comes to the form of reality we live, I lived by "possibility" by making my own theories and hypothesis with my own observations. I rather question the origins of reality then trap myself with the assumption of reality was created by a being of intelligence, I would rather question and re-question it all and see which theories make more logical sense, for are reality is based on physical catalyst therefor there must be a catalyst of creation, I only say creation as in the forming of this reality. Now what if this being who created humanity came around, and you found it wasn't a supreme being, but just an alien species who "played god", what would you do? It would confirm intelligent design of humans, but the fact a species and create life might destroy the foundations religion founded on, for humanity was created by "god". So if a alien created humanity, then my extension, humanities "god" who didn't create the universe. Open your mind and stop trapping yourselves in the idea that a god created everything. Make your own decisions and live this life the way you want not how a god wanted you to live it.
Posted by Thegreatdebate98 2 years ago
Well, first learn how to spell "creationism", unless you got cut off for too many words. Anyways, you can believe in evolution and creationism. You can even believe in the theory of the big bang and creationism, they are not polar opposites, they can be intertwined. In the bible, God could've used the big bang to create the universe. Microevolution is quite possible, and is never disproven in the bible. Science describes the how and the bible describes the why. The bible is the historical aspect, not the scientific, it wasn't meant for that purpose. He created us to be quite capable of thinking on our own. The existence of God is quite possible, it is illogical to blankly say "We cannot see God, therefore there is a 99% chance he doesn't exist." That is a very ignorant statement. Besides fossils and DNA, we have no real evidence to back up the theory of macro evolution. The big bang theory has a lot of flaws within it. However, those are baby steps, correct? It is illogical to believe that a mind hasn't created what we haven't thought of. If there was no real design, then we are nothing but skin with the minds of robots. Even Charles Darwin went back to his Christian views before he died, but every Atheist seems to leave that part out. Being close minded does no make you intelligent, but blind to the possibilities. You think you're open minded, but any talk of God is similar to believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but the exploration of finding Big Foot is clearly scientific, of course... Contradiction? I think yes. Santa Claus had no purpose, however he was a real person, but not a magical man living in the north pole. Just a regular guy in the bible. You see Christianity and Judiasm were once synanomous. The religion of Islam came afterwards, the Quran has a lot of similarities because Mohammad took great interest in it. Although, how is it that there is evidence of Jesus and the events in the bible, especially if you go to Israel? Faith is stronger.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
Hey BDPerishing, I'll probably have my arguement late tomorrow, I have a calculus final that must be attended to as of now, thanks.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
See the problem is one side cant prove the other is wrong, but when one side "claims" a god made it all. Then its up to the claimer to provide relevant evidence that would force scientific study/process to accept that it is "true" as in "law". It could be a theory, but those who claim god exist and is simply true no need for explanation. Another issue is the claim god made man in his image, not referring to a process that developed man into his image. Therefor the wording suggests man was mystically placed on earth with no explainable origin. This has been show incorrect for we can discern that humans developed from more or less bacteria from early development of earth, which then evolved into the species of earth we can find in the past and are currently living today. If creationist want to "proof" science wrong then they need to provide logical proof, but they refer to experiences, a book written by man, and the vast dimensional space we currently live as proof. The Ring trilogy is a book, but you see no one claiming its a book given to us by god to explain it all and to live by. Extremely high drug users will claim a pink elephant means death, does that mean this image is actually a being who will kill you? Claiming that reality is too vast to ever be explained is simply a irrational claim, people long ago would call you insane if you told them that man will one day sore in the sky like a bird. Long ago you would be called insane if you told people man will pierce heavens and sore beyond which we have done. What can be done and what cant be done is only relative in the time it was claimed for we have proven claims that called it impossible.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
God says, " My ways are higher than your ways, and my thinking is higher than your thinking, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts and ways higher than your ways and thinking.

That is why he sent us a book telling us how he does things. You will NEVER figure it out without his book.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO easily showed how creationism is basically an Argument from Ignorance. Also, PRO provided a wide variety of sources to support his arguments; CON mostly referenced the bible.