The Instigator
NixonJ97
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

God exists

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 46272
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

NixonJ97

Pro

No argumentation in round one,
Round 2: opening statements and case building.
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4: closing statements
please only join if you will be willing to continue debating, and you will be able to respond
in a timely fashion..
Debate Round No. 1
NixonJ97

Pro

Thank you for accepting, and for being quick to respond, I hope this will be enjoyable for both sides.
I will do my best to support this without using the bible as proof, seeing as that probably means nothing in the way of evidence to you...
I have a couple main points here
1. There is too much against theories like evolution and the big bang etc. for them to stand. The world must have been created by someone with immense power, namely God

sub-point a. Darwin was skeptical of his own theories, in fact, if I didn't believe in God I would probably think of evolution as pretty viable however on the note of Darwin, he wrote: "I think" under many of his figures, and was in general just trying to figure things out. Evolution and others do not answer the question of how did matter get there in the first place.
My question here is this: If the big bang theory was true, and thus no creator existent, where did the matter come from for it to take place, in other words, what is the origin of the universe.

sub point b. How does evolution account for the ENORMOUS detail in the world, as well as how it would ever be possible for this enormously improbable thin g to happen... you believe that one the first try, the universe came up with earth, and sentient beings that are truly amazing in what they can do and create? how is that an accident... and is we come from monkeys, why do we see NO living "in-between species" true we have monkeys and apes, and then us, but where are living, or for that matter, dead, specimens proving this process, besides estimates and guesses of what it would have been like. there is more, and I fear I am somewhat in eloquent in illustrating this, but I think the general idea is there. that evolution and the big bang are JUST theories, and they do not stand. there has to be something else going on. In others words GOD EXISTS

argument 2: how does science explain miracles, and occurrences that denying logical evaluation and natural laws.

If you look throughout history you will find accounts of miracles, and if you look to sources from ancient times (besides the bible) you find affirmation for Christs existence and works.

I have other things today, so for now that's it, thanks again for debating.
Mikal

Con

I would like to thank Pro for proposing this debate

The first thing I want to review is the resolution

"God exists"

I do want to point out what I have to do to win and what my adversary must do to win. He must show that God exists. He can not show that God probably exists, or that there is a possibility that God exists, but must abide by the resolution

This is a positive claim, and by saying this he is affirming that God does exist. There must be empirical and direct evidence to support this statement, and he must not operate under assumption

It is my job to provide reasonable doubt, and also show why we do not need a God.


An Impossible Stance

Atheism and Christians share one common issue. The issue is they both claim a positive statement. Atheist claim "God does not exist", Christians claim that "God does exist". The fundamental failure in both of these stances, is that we are discussing something that cannot be tested or proven to be factual.

This is commonly explained through an analogy called Russel's Teapot.


" Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God." [1][2]

This is the most logical way to try and address an argument like this. It is psychically impossible for Christians to claim that they are correct because there is no way to they can be proven wrong. Atheist have the same issue in a similar way. It is impossible to say that they are right because there is no way to prove it either.

No need for Creationism.

This is a simple appeal to Occam's Razor. If we have a working model of how the universe began and was created, why add unnecessary changes to the model that is already working. Through modern science we can clearly see how the universe began, and that it does not need a creator to jump start it.

There are things that are called quantum flotations that can explain how matter and space first began to exist. To first address this question we need to ask can something come from nothing? Let's ask the novel prize winner David Gross

http://www.youtube.com...

Gross showed that the space between quarks in a proton can produce matter and energy randomly from nothing. They can exist and come into place through quantum fluctuation. So yes something can come from nothing. The next thing we have to address is what type of universe do we live in.


We can live in an open , flat , or closed universe. This is also addressed with curvature. The universe can be Positive, Negative, or Flat.











All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel lines

never meeting (flat or Euclidean)
must cross (spherical)
always divergent (hyperbolic) [3]









The universe is commonly accepted as a flat universe.


" Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."[4]

The perfect part about this is that a flat universe yields total energy 0. Which is the only universe that can produce quantum fluctuation and actually spawn random universe into existence. [5]




Probability

When determining if something is actually a working model or viable model, there are a variety of factors that go into play. One of which is probability. The irony of this is that probability is actually in my favor. I can show that a God probably does not exist and meet my part of the resolution. My adversary can not abide by this and must show empirical evidence. That is the downside of the resolution and claiming such a bold stance.

Example

Let's examine this statement

"Chickens like to peck the ground"

Now lets have a little thought experiment. Pretend we have no idea what a chicken is. We have just discovered them and we are observing facts about them. We have ten chickens in ten different pens. We notice that the first 8 chickens like to peck the ground. The ninth does not. So when we go to watch the tenth, what is the most logical conclusion we are going to arrive at? The chicken will probably like to peck the ground. We can assume this because it is a trend among the majority of other chickens.

Through experiments like this, hypotheses and theories are developed. Working theories often share a common theme and can be proven through verifiable evidence. How do we know chickens like to peck the ground? Because 99 percent of chickens like to do this. Even if 80 percent of chickens liked to peck the ground, if we were going to make a theory it would be something like "most chickens like to peck the ground"


Conclusion

Creationism is an outdated idea that should have long since been discarded. We have working models such as evolution, and even the string theory to help us understand how we began to exist. When we are normally dealing in terms of logic and rationality we take basics facts and compare it to other basic facts

The issue with God is that you can insert any variable in place of God and it would have the same tone and argument. You could say (x) created the universe. There is no way to prove it or disprove it, the only logical way to address this is the previous ones that I mentioned. Do we need (x) to explain how and why the universe operates? No we do not, we have working models in every way, shape, and form that help us understand how and why we exist

The resolution we are looking at is

"God exists"

Perhaps you could prove it is rational to believe in creationism but it is almost impossible to prove that it is viable. When compared to modern scientific data and facts. There is no need for it.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://russell.mcmaster.ca...
[3] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
[4] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[5] Lawerence Krauss ; A universe from nothing
Debate Round No. 2
NixonJ97

Pro

NixonJ97 forfeited this round.
Mikal

Con

extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
NixonJ97

Pro

NixonJ97 forfeited this round.
Mikal

Con

Sadly this turned into a noob snipe. i had high hopes for this and was let down.

Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
Okay then message me your response please and me and u will have a discussion that way cos I think this will be quite interesting
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
I am not adding to the debate in the comments section. It would give me an advantage, and it is against conduct.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
Mikal just respond in the comments I am not part of the debate
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
Also Mikal your something from nothing point is flawed on the basis that your example involves not nothing, but something a quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy that has a physical structure scientists have tried to redefine nothing and then assert things can come from nothing this is simply false and a true example of deception.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
That logic is so flawed I am not going to address it in the comment section lol. I will respond in the debate if you actually choose to use that as a contention.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
What nonsense Mikal you brought up regarding you must prove God exists there must be empirical evidence, WHAT!, with that methodology you can neither prove or disprove God so the debate becomes pointless, for absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore the real issue with this is that empiricism cannot even tell you if your great great great great great great great great great grandmother existed, for you have no direct or indirect empirical evidence for her existence, but using your rationale and logic from the fact you are here now you rationally deduce that she must have existed, but it is not done through empirical evidence, you have none!
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Right "Gods Magic". Tell me how that is answer? You can't really comprehend a timeless, spaceless being in the first place. Let alone have any reasonable explanation for where matter came from. God's will made matter and energy? There is a HUGE gap between our observable world and that statement! You make the leap and fall forever!
Posted by NixonJ97 2 years ago
NixonJ97
God is an all powerful being.... He has the capability to create something from nothing, or to do things scientifically impossible otherwise
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Where did God get the matter and energy for the universe? When you answer the question of "something from nothing" with God did it. You are only left with more questions!
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
When you are claiming a deity exists, that requires incredible evidence to support it. Incredible evidence would verify the deity.

It does not matter what you changed the resolution to, it would bear the same problem

"God could exist"

Anything could exist

Even if you changed it to

"God probably exists"

It would not change my initial arguments. My entire premise negates the need for a God so that would change nothing that I am going to post

I always respond to contentions, that is where I make the debate unique. The first round of contentions is a pre made lay out I use. If someone can refute it properly, I will respond accordingly. If not it is not worth my time. I do it with every debate that makes a positive claim like this

The issue is that saying a "God exists" is pressuring you to show irrefutable evidence. If you want to work on changing my mind or for me to open that is where you have to start anyway. I am always open to change my thoughts, and have did so many times since i joined the sight but it was cases that went above and beyond.

Saying God existing is a possibility is not showing any evidence to support your case, but just an assertion without any hard evidence to back it up

If that makes sense?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
NixonJ97MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
NixonJ97MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice snail pictures... Oh and forfeit.
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 2 years ago
tylergraham95
NixonJ97MikalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Full FF. Still a good read, though!