The Instigator
BananaTheLord
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MizzEnigma
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

God does exist

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 1 vote the winner is...
MizzEnigma
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 926 times Debate No: 83166
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (54)
Votes (1)

 

BananaTheLord

Pro

Ok look. God exists because the creation needs a creator. How do you expect the entire universe just to pop out of nowhere. The big bang created it and was a ball of energy. In science we know energy needs to be formed and cannot create itself. Therefor the big bang needed to be formed. But since it was in the middle of blackness where nothing was there what could have formed it. The only logical answer for this is a deity.
MizzEnigma

Con

Before I begin, I want to thank you for challenging me to this debate. This is my first, actually. Welcome to DDO and good luck.

Keep in mind that there are many variations of the Big Bang theory. I assuming you are aiming to address the Ball-of-Light Theory. I would advise specifying on which end you are aiming to debate over (as well as which creator, if you had a specific one in mind), but since the question is not the theory itself, but a creator (assuming the Christian God) we can leave it there. If you do, however, have a specific god in mind (you did not specify in your first argument), then I will need to know in order to refute its existence. Please and thank you.

I reject the claim that a god is necessary in order for the universe to come into existence, but rather through naturalism. By this, I am meaning the Big Bang [inflationary theory], which expanded and formed the universe through the means of quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are the state of nothing (the lowest point it can go). Because of quantum fluctuations, there is a constant, and temporary, appearance of sub-nuclear particles and anti-particles that annihilate each other in the same instance. It allows for the fluctuations to exist, and then not exist spontaneously. Through this, an inflation could have started that gave way to the universe we know now. (Note: these fluctuations do not violate the conservation of energy and have been proven to exist in quantum vacuums.) [1][2][3]

In this blackness that you describe, there were quantum fluctuations. As I had stated before, quantum fluctuations are the state of nothing. Meaning, there will never be an empty space, like you imagine, without these fluctuations. And through the law of quantum mechanics, there is a something that would eventually form from instability [the state of quantum fluctuations]. And that something happened to be the formation of our universe. I wouldn't actually say "pop," but rather inflated like a balloon.

The Big Bang then allows for the universe to form naturally, without a need for a god. The "creator" in this sense are the fluctuations, not a supernatural being. In other words: naturally, as it requires no assistance of a deity. Therefore, naturalism is a logical answer.

[1] https://www.astrosociety.org...
[2] http://phys.org...
[3] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
BananaTheLord

Pro

OK fine. I still do disagree but fine. Now I will move to some thing I'd like to point out to you In my holy book which is the Quran and I'm Muslim and we believe the same god christens believe minus Jesus and holy spirit. Let me ask you one question, If someone builds something the world has never seen. Who could be the first person to tell you how this invention works. The inventor, creator, manufacturer, etc. Now In the quran in surah ambia it says that the heavens and earth were all together at one point and they split and started expanding which is referring to Big bang. Now who could have said this 1400 years ago. No one knew this at the time. So it could be only be the creator. Now you may say this is a coincidence but ok, fine. Now in the quran it also says that the moon has shared or borrowed light from the sun. 1400 years ago people thought the moon had its own light. Well we discovered this no more than a few hundred years ago. Again who could've mentioned this, the creator. Do you still reject, fine. Now, the Quran talks about human embryotic development. Now it says "We created man out of an extract of clay. Then we made him as a drop in a place of settlement, fixedly firmed. Then we made the drop into alaqah (Blood clot, suspended thing, leech.) Now we know the human embryo is a blood clot and from the tube attached to it, it would be a suspended thing. Now about the leech. It basically means that we looked like a leech when we were an embryo. Many at the time said this is stupid and now modern day, scientist used powerful equipment to look at the human embryo and it looked like a leech. Who could have mentioned all of this in the quran. For this to be a coincidence it is less than 1 percent far less that's almost impossible. I have many other scientific miracles that I could list that is from the Quran but If you still think this is a mere coincidence look up Dr. Zakir Naik on youtube.
MizzEnigma

Con

Okay, so we are going by the Quran then. I do not have much knowledge of the Quran itself, but I will aim to do my best based on what you have presented to me.

("That the heavens and earth were all together at one point and they split and started expanding which is referring to the Big Bang.") This is false given that the universe is older than the Earth. It took time for the Earth itself to even form. The universe is estimated to be around 13.7 billion years. [1] The age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years. [2] There's a difference, as you can see, between the ages. The Earth did not expand across a distance, but instead formed from chunks of planetesimals from the Sun, equipped with its own gravitational field and found itself in its own orbit around the sun. [3] The passage that you have offered and the facts do not align.

("1400 years ago people thought the moon had its own light. Well we discovered this no more than a few hundred years ago.") The moon does not have its own light. It reflects light from the sun. [4]

("We created man out of an extract of clay...") Humans are not made out of clay.

("Then we made him as a drop in a place of settlement, fixedly firmed. Then we made the drop into alaqah. Now we know the human embryo is a blood clot and from the tube attached to it, it would be a suspended thing. Now about the leech. It basically means that we looked like a leech when we were an embryo.") Embryology doesn't prove a creator. Information of this sort could be from other writings. Fetal development is able to be observed through means like miscarriages. If that is all of the passage regarding the embryonic stage, then I conclude. Even if it's not the entirety, my point still remains. Information like this is not evidence of a creator.

None of the "scientific miracles" that you have provided have been evidence for a creator. Some of the information is also wrong. Since the next round is the final, you can make one last argument for me to rebuttal. I advise using a supreme finisher.

[1] http://hubblesite.org...
[2] http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...
[3] http://www.explorit.org...
[4] http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
BananaTheLord

Pro

Unfortunately you still refuse god exist based on these miracles and I cannot say anymore but keep in mind nobody could have known this 1400 years ago making this impossible to be a coincidence and also the Quran talks about our solar system and in which it says the sun is the center of the solar system and also prophesized so many other things that came true such as how boys will act like girls and vice versa. Finally Im not sure if its in the Quran or Hadith (Saying of a prophet or messenger of god) that the moon used to be split in half and when Apollo 10 landed on the moon they found a huge crack which is photographed. Trust me it wasn't an ordinary crack it was large, really large and when they did some research it indicated that the moon might have split. If you still do not think this is significant then I cannot do anything else for you. I will still believe in my faith so you cannot make me atheist. Good debate. I think this is a draw.
MizzEnigma

Con

I see no evidence for a creator, so I would not convert. I don't see these as miracles either.

("... Quran talks about our solar system and in which it says the sun is the center of the solar system.") I would need the exact verse for me to rebuttal, not just claims.

("... boys will act like girls and vice versa.") Transgender and cross-dressing isn't a new thing. It's been around for a very long time and has now only started to become more widely accepted (at least here in the United States.) This verse could be based on personal experiences of Mohammed and noted in the Quran for that reason.

("... that the moon used to be split in half and when Apollo 10 landed on the moon they found a huge crack which is photographed. Trust me it wasn't an ordinary crack it was large, really large and when they did some research it indicated that the moon might have split.") Where is your source of information? I was curious of this bit of information, so I decided to search myself. I found that NASA did not agree with your claims. [1]

You have failed to prove the existence of a creator by using the Quran.

[1] http://lunarscience.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BananaTheLord 11 months ago
BananaTheLord
Good Day.
Posted by MizzEnigma 11 months ago
MizzEnigma
That's fine with me. I wasn't intending on making you accept the BB and persuade you into being an atheist. I just refuted your attempt to convert me. Have a nice day, BananaTheLord.
Posted by MizzEnigma 11 months ago
MizzEnigma
That's fine with me. I wasn't intending on making you accept the BB and persuade you into being an atheist. I just refuted your attempt to convert me. Have a nice day, BananaTheLord.
Posted by BananaTheLord 11 months ago
BananaTheLord
You believe what you do I believe what I do and I see miracles in the Quran and what not and if you choose to deny well I cant make you accept creationism nor can you make me accept atheism.
Posted by MizzEnigma 12 months ago
MizzEnigma
Neither is creationism. Quite a bit of it has been erroneous. And given that you were not around during its creation, you cannot say creationism is not infallible. It goes either way.

I didn't say it was a fact. Nothing of the sort. I find it likeliest. As I mentioned before, also, there are variants of the Big Bang, and those variants evolve. New things are learned, new attributes, new qualities. With it, more variants form or shape. The inflationary theory with quantum physics might crumble, might evolve, might remain the same. I wouldn't know in which manner since I am not a physicist. And, since I am not, I would never throw it around as a fact, because it is not and it would be a long time, if at all, before we could be sure of anything of the sort.

The Big Bang has evidence towards it. It's the matter of which variant of the theory contributed to it. I doubt it will be tossed away, but when better theories arrive, it will be replaced accordingly. When theories are wrong, they are wrong and tossed away. Just as the flat-earth theory was.
Posted by BananaTheLord 12 months ago
BananaTheLord
Also we are talking about science that explains something before creation or our universe so you cant say that this theory is infallible.
Posted by BananaTheLord 12 months ago
BananaTheLord
That may be but we aren't 100 percent sure if the Quantum theory explains the creation of the big bang. Many scientific theories in history were accepted by many but were proven wrong. This one may be next.
Posted by MizzEnigma 12 months ago
MizzEnigma
@BananaTheLord, you didn't account for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle when speaking of particles.
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Reformist// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I'm a Christian. But WOW Pro screwed up this debate

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter doesn't explain any of his point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Chaosism// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both participants displayed good conduct. Pro committed some S/G errors, but nothing significant enough to impair readability. Pro put forth many claims which were either barely supported or not at all, some of which were of a spurious nature. Each of these claims were soundly and directly refuted by Con's reubttals, to which Pro provided no defense. The resolution is was not affirmed; arguments to Con. Con supplied a multitude of sources to back the refutations.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter insufficiently explains arguments points allocations. It is necessary to reference specific arguments, and yet this vote doesn't point to a single point made by either side. It could be applied to practically any debate interchangeably. (2) The voter insufficiently explains sources. One side having multiple sources is not enough to award these points, even if the other side had none. The voter has to explain how those sources influenced the outcome of the debate.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 12 months ago
Chaosism
BananaTheLordMizzEnigmaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both participants displayed good conduct. Pro committed some S/G errors, but nothing significant enough to impair readability. Pro put forth many claims which were either barely supported or not at all [i.e. Big-bang reference, shown to be erroneous by Con], some of which were of a spurious nature [i.e. embryotic development>created man out of an extract of clay, argument based on similarity of appearance]. Each of these claims were soundly and directly refuted by Con's rebuttals, to which Pro provided no defense. The resolution is was not affirmed; arguments to Con. Con supplied a multitude of sources [like nasa] to back the refutations [while Pro had none].