God does exist.
Debate Rounds (5)
Alright, In order of something to be created, you will need a creator. What scientists says as they're theory, is that the universe was created because of "The Big Bang Theory".
The Big Bang: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.
Now what Scientists don't know is what triggered the "Big Bang". This can lead to prove in God's existence.
For example, this link quotes a letter from 33 scientists arguing against the Big Bang theory. For example, it argues that the Big Bang theory is unsupported by any quantitative predictions:
"What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles."
But let's assume that the Big Bang theory is true. How is that evidence for the existence of God? Just because we don't know why there was a rapid expansion of matter 13.8 billion years ago doesn't logically imply that God exists - that would be the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false."
In other words, the most plausible conclusion is that we just don't know what caused the Big Bang, not that God exists.
On other issues, many individuals say if there is a God, why is there poverty, wars, hate, and etc. I believe things like this happen because we owe a debt to God. For example, when someone loans you money, they expect you to pay them back at some point. This is why there's absence of good, love, and happiness.
Einstein's Professor, once said that God created evil and he doesn't exist. Einstein quickly replied and said "Cold doesn't exist because it's an energy that lacks heat." "Darkness doesn't exist because it's just an absence of light."
Since this is the last round, as my very first debate, I'd like to give thanks to segregory for accepting my debate and for a great debate. I will forfeit Round 5 because it's an extra round that I accidentally put down.
Good Luck in future debates segregory!
Also, you have not addressed my objections to the Big Bang theory in my previous post, so the whole issue may be moot. If the Big Bang theory is not established, its theological implications are irrelevant.
Overall, I would say that Pro has not met their burden of proof for God's existence, so by the burden of proof principle we should reject the claim that God exists. Vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.