God IS real
Debate Rounds (3)
I would like to also note that I will not be arguing the validity of any religion's Holy texts, rather, I will strictly define my argument to notable laws of science, philosophy, and lack of representation. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
To begin with, I would like to examine the premise of most secular claims to "origin" of reality, or space-time more specifically. Most notable as "The Big Bang Theory", this theory has two propositions among people:
1. It accounts for strictly the creation of the physical universe (e.g. mass).
2. It does actually account for the creation of the spatial universe (e.g. space, time, and dimension as a general concept).
The one I shall be addressing is the latter, the prediction that the physical 'expansion' of space accounts for the theory of the actual space, and time, alike.
Now, one might question the validity of the prediction that "space" is a physical entity, prone to manipulation of any source, or essentially "bends" or "twists". However, very concepts of movement via velocity, and the spherical bend in space via gravity, state otherwise. In fact, a project performed through Stanford University and NASA (a mutual sponsorship of the project) released "Gravity Probe B" (https://en.wikipedia.org...) in April of 2004. This gravity probe utilized several gyroscopes, spinning in a constant velocity until the minuscule distortion of space, caused by the twist in earth's angular velocity in relation to its bulging mass, caused by the slight compression towards the equator of the earth. What this experiment proved was the 'physical qualifications' of recognizing space as a legitimate entity, and not merely a concept. Similar theories have been presented concerning the matter, however, these tend to revolve around the affects of space and velocity in direct comparison to time. These concepts are known as "time dilation" and "gravitational time dilation" (https://en.wikipedia.org...). I shall refer back to the general term of time dilation. The concept behind this phenomenon is, 'with an increasing velocity in space, one experiences a decreasing velocity in time". Part of this theory can be attributed to the idea that, due to the immense force produced by the Big Bang, the universe as a whole expands at the equivalent to light-speed. The smaller terms of time-dilation are already observable in relation between earth's surface and orbit, where clocks set in orbit will progress slightly slower than those on earth; this is due to the increasing velocity in orbit, as well as the decrease of overall mass present (e.g. gravity). Of course, gravity is still quite prevalent in orbit, but the -immediate- mass is not as close as the surface.
Now take this theory back to the Big Bang- Assuming that space is expanding in the manner, as it so claims, and in relation to hypothesis two, which I mentioned earlier, this would imply region outside of space. However, this could not exist as a mere "nothingness", as the theory of purely 'nothing' would sustain a concept of instability, or rather lack-of. Because nothingness is quite literally made up of nothing, and because space -is- something, it would be about the equivalent of building a tower in midair, without a ground to support it. In the same way the building would crumble, space itself would crumble without a proper, fundamental foundation. Now while I personally, as a Christian, would account to this stability as an essence of a god, the secular perspective would claim an incomprehensible reality beyond modern 'science'. Now before I explain what I mean by this, I must make something quite clear: Our modern understanding of science is built upon laws of atomic matter and space-time. Any source, outside of this proper entity, may prove to contain dimensions and laws strictly different from our own. The idea that I am getting at is that, while our modern perception of laws of science may state that the creation of "something" cannot come from nothing, in a reality/dimension void of space and time, which merely serves as a foundation, this law may not actually be present, and creation of something, may be -able- to originate from the "closest thing" to nothing, since I have hypothesized that there is no "nothingness" present. Based on this logic, a self-creating universe could be possible.
Now there is also the fact that, under human ideals, atheists -do- have one advantage, according to our own standards. This advantage is "innocent until proven guilty", and while this might apply to both sides of the argument in a sense, proving a positive is typically far more advocated than proving the negative. Meaning, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. Of course, same could be said for my statement of the "foundation" of space, but ultimately this would lead to a stalemate, as neither side could properly provide the evidence of their own.
Now what I did notice from your first statement was a use of ethos. Which while I do appreciate a nice, honest use of ethos in a debate, alone, it is not a substantial form of evidence. Your claim "because he answers my prayers" requires a number of assumptions:
1. It is not a miscorrelation. An "answered prayer" can quite frankly be explained away by even mere coincidence.
2. Your statement is truthful. Whether this implies deception to the audience, or even deception to yourself.
There is not enough substantial evidence to rely on this as the sole argument alone; however, I do believe you will provide a statement next round- and I surely hope.
This concludes my arguments for this particular round. I apologize if they were not as well-rounded as some might have hoped, but again, as they contradict my fundamental beliefs, I am simply looking for loopholes in my own philosophies. I look forward to my opponent's arguments, and thus, I shall state my remaining propositions, rebuttals, and closing statement in the final round, since no boundaries were set for this debate. Best of luck, instigator.
He hears you. He would not have made you if he would not help you. He loves you and hears you whenever you pray. He already knows what your life is going to look like, so when you pray for something, it may seem like He's not listening, but he is.
He threw out one of his angels because it wasn't acting nice. He flooded and killed the world because everyone was acting the way they are now. He was sad that he made those people and they took advantage of the world and ruined it. Our world is turning into a modern Sodom and Gomorrah. Some day, God will come back to Earth and take his followers up to heaven with him. But if you go along with the world and do those things that are wrong, you will not go to heaven.
Heaven is a magical place. When you enter those beautiful gates, you will wear a crown and robe and walk the streets of pure gold. Wherever you want to go does not exist.
Not exactly sure how I would be "taking advantage" of the world, considering the fact that this debate was purely for the sake of practice and to gain the privilege to vote on other debates. And quite frankly, where I "want to go" after I die, is also heaven. I mentioned before, I am a Christian adopting an atheist position for the sake of this debate alone; this debate is by no means personalized. However, you have not presented an honest "argument" of your own. I would also appreciate if the voters would take this into consideration.
The debate was appreciated, Glitter. However, I believe my statements speak for themselves. I might add a word of advice; not criticism, but just a favor. Do not fear skepticism- even against yourself. An honest answer will evolve in time, but never limit yourself by the opinions of peers or for the 'sanctity' of the crowds.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never meets her BoP. Her case focused entirely on an unsubstantiated claim that God answers prayers, which did nothing to counter the logic I'm getting from Con about the potential for other means for universal creation. Con's also right that Pro's entire case is ethos, resulting in a threadbare argument that never has any real heft for her side. It may be possible that all the things she said were true, but that requires more than just unwarranted claims. While Con's case and focus on alternative means for universal creation may be responsive to an argument that Pro never gives, his responses to Pro's case are sufficient reason to negate based on BoP alone and so that's what I do.
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.