The Instigator
Passionate_Fighter
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheObjectiveTruth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

For the existence of God, which argument is better?

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: 12/10/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 257 times Debate No: 83772
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Passionate_Fighter

Pro

A = 1. Some kind with Intelligence - 2. The Universe and everything in it
OR
B = 1. Random things and events - 2. The Universe and everything in it

NOTICE:
It has been proven by science that even a simple thing like a watch cannot be created even when given infinite (endless) time!
And since the human reproductive system is far greater than a watch.

How can you believe that a watch cannot be created by chance even when given infinite (endless) time but, that a human reproductive system can be created by chance?
TheObjectiveTruth

Con

It is true that a thing like a watch has never been created with no intelligent intervention. However, it cannot be said that it is impossible for it to happen even given an infinity of time, because we have only even had the ability to intelligently observe the universe for a few thousand years, forget infinity. Also, within infinity lies every piece of information that could ever exist and as such the information necessary to make a watch. As we live in an infinite universe and are a part of the universe, and created by the universe, It could be said that we are the way the universe creates watches from nothing.

All that aside, watches are inanimate objects. complex organisms have the ability, because of DNA, to self replicate. However, the self-replication process can let through accidental changes in genetic code, also known as mutations, that cause genetic variations. These mistakes/mutations become more common in species with more complicated DNA. Some mutations have negative effects, some neutral, some positive. The Positive effects bring positive results and a greater chance of survival. (Better sight/metabolism/reflexes/libido) when this next generations DNA is copied, these mutations are carried on, possibly with additional mutations. over time, these mutations add up to create new species. This is how organisms go from single cell, to multi cell, to complex and advanced life forms.

How do these simple life forms come to be? life didn't start from nothing. Recent research has finally shown, irrefutably, how life began. In one simple experiment, sterile forms of compounds that would have been present in the primordial soup were simply left to sit alone. It was observed that these chemicals, like chemicals do, came together to form compounds. Compounds like amino acids. The most important molecule that formed was RNA. Not alive. simply a chemical mixture that occurred randomly. This was impressive, however RNA cannot give commands and self replicate as DNA can as the basic structure of life. So again, Scientists were left with another gap and more questions. Then years later in another experiment, It was realized that the primordial soup was not sterile and therefore the experiment was flawed. Present in the primordial soup along with the components of RNA were elements like iron and silicon and other minerals. So again, this stagnant, lifeless mix of elements was left to its own devices. This time around, after the RNA formed, Iron would come in contact with it, creating an electric impulse. As RNA strands differ depending on their structure and specific composition, the electric impulses were given differing commands from the different elements in each strand as each element has different electrical properties. With this current now present, The RNA began to behave like DNA. It self replicated and gave electrical commands to surrounding compounds like amino acids which make up proteins that could hold the energy for later use by the command of the DNA. As the DNA replicated, each strand brought with it its fibers and proteins and carbons. We now have self replicating cells. Over time, the DNA is replicated incorrectly. One or two elements in the strand are out of place and therefore give a different path for the electrical signals giving different commands. One such different command was that instead of cells separating, the cells would stick together after replicating. Thus were born multicellular organisms. Some of these organisms developed a light sensitive protein. Over generations, this protein deepened into a pocket which would focus and widen the range of light that could be registered until it formed a socket. fluid filled the socket and a membrane formed covering the opening; a lens, if you will. the lens kept variations of the light away and focused it onto the back of the light sensitive socket. You guessed it; an eye. Eyes were originally made for water dwelling creatures, because they were the first to develop them. Light behaves very differently under water. This is why, when some of these creatures ventured onto land, they were no longer able to see objects close up clearly as well as far away, the way sea dwelling creatures today do. As their descendants, our eyesight is also imperfect. Eyes are one of the most complicated devices on earth. Much more complicated than watches.
Debate Round No. 1
Passionate_Fighter

Pro

Passionate_Fighter forfeited this round.
TheObjectiveTruth

Con

gods existed to explain the unexplainable. As we've learned to attribute phenomena to what they actually are, more and more of the gods we used to explain these phenomena died out. We now have a perfect understanding of how we came to be. We now know that, regardless of whether or not there is a god, the universe and life function without him. Even if he did exist, we now know that science can work without him, and if it can work without him, he is irrelevant. If god is irrelevant then he cannot be god.
Debate Round No. 2
Passionate_Fighter

Pro

Passionate_Fighter forfeited this round.
TheObjectiveTruth

Con

TheObjectiveTruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Passionate_Fighter

Pro

Passionate_Fighter forfeited this round.
TheObjectiveTruth

Con

TheObjectiveTruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Passionate_Fighter

Pro

Passionate_Fighter forfeited this round.
TheObjectiveTruth

Con

TheObjectiveTruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
I am a nonbeliever and "option B" would not be my choice.
Both options are a bias point of view.
The negative aspect we usually associate with bias does not come from bias itself but rather the belief that comes with it. Belief produces a set of brackets around a point of view that says in effect "The answer lies here." Once you believe you have found the answer, your point of view becomes biased, (intransigent and prejudiced) and prevents you from looking at other possible alternatives. Beliefs act as a barrier to further understanding. If a person develops a faith in a point of view, then it becomes overwhelming to the point that nothing, even in the light of convincing evidence, will the faithful yield to better information. A biased belief can convince its believers that they hold the key to all understanding and "truth" without providing any evidence to support it.
An intellectually honest person would have to say "I do not know", because no one knows.
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com...
Posted by Passionate_Fighter 1 year ago
Passionate_Fighter
Little children.
Did I not given an option of A or B?

A - is obviously the theism side.
B - is obviously the atheism side.

(Since it has been made clear that I am For A [Pro],
Someone must be Against A [Con])

What is important is not wether I have been illeratelly incorrect but that some unstable people may get it through their thick skull that their suppressing the truth from God.
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you using the complexity argument due to not understanding how random mutations with a non-random selection can produce complex systems? If so, then I recommend taking a few biology classes.
Posted by RookieApologist 1 year ago
RookieApologist
What exactly is your argument? You are PRO, but for what stance? Right now it just looks like you are asking a question. I suggest changing it so that you are taking one side of the argument or the other. For instance, God explains the Universe better than random chance (or visa versa depending on your argument).
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Ridiculous debate. If given the premise that you're trying to prove God, then obviously the one which suggests he is intelligent, will be superior to one which says random events occurred.
No votes have been placed for this debate.