The Instigator
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

God is the only answer to the beginning of life

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 9 votes the winner is...
TheSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,405 times Debate No: 7139
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

rougeagent21

Pro

I stand in affirmation. I define God as The Omnipotent, Omnipresent, All-knowing God of Christianity. Without him, the universe could not have come into existence. I will allow my opponent to post his opening argument first. Good luck.
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate, though I do find it somewhat displeasing if he has no argument.

An interesting thing to note is that my opponent's opening round and resolution contradict. The beginning of life (abiogenesis) does not mean the universe "coming" into existence. However, since the burden to prove abiogenesis can only happen under the Christian god is quite the task for my opponent, I will attack the easier proposition: that the Christian God is the only accountable explanation for the existence of the universe.

=====
Big Bang Theory
=====

About 15 billion years ago, a singularity containing all the matter and energy of space expanded, thus leading to the formation of our current Universe[1]. This definitely explains how our universe exists.

=====
Why the Christian God?
=====

My opponent has a certain burden to prove: how come the Christian God can be the only answer for the universes' existence? Why can't the God of Islam be the answer? Why can't a yet unknown God called X be the answer? My opponent has arbitrarily stated that only Jesus Christ can be the universe' cause and he needs to justify his decision. Remember the attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

=====
Conclusion
=====

My opponent has a certain burden to prove, so go on ahead.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Pro

Alright then, I will address my opponent's case, and then move on to my own

--BIG BANG--
God snapped his finger. BANG. Contention one affirmed.
Here is the thing: Where did this "singularity" that my opponent talks about come from? How did it get there? There is no answer to this question. Opponent, if you have an answer, please tell me.

--WHY THE CHRISTIAN GOD?--
My opponent brings up the God of Islam. (I believe he mistakenly named Allah as a different god. "Allah" is equivalent to the Christian God, only under a different name. Muslims believe different things about him, but Arab-speaking Christians call God: "Allah", or, Almighty.) That being put out of the way, he asks why some "X" god could not have created the universe. Here is why:

-Jesus is the only God who has revealed himself to our race. All other "gods" were made up by man. God showed himself to us through Jesus Christ.
-It is undisputed that Jesus really lived, and that he really died on the cross. This is not only written in the Bible, but throughout other documents of history.
-Jesus is the One, True God. He is the only way we could exist, much less the universe. Without God, there would be nothing.

Because of these reasons, I can only affirm the resolution. Thank you.
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for his fast response. He seems to agree with my observation that the debate is about the existence of the universe, not the origin of life. Onto the debate!

=====
Big Bang
=====

>>>God snapped his finger. BANG. Contention one affirmed.<<<

This is true. However, if I can show a plausible scientific explanation for the Big Bang, then by virtue of Occam's Razor God should be abandoned.

>>>Where did this "singularity" that my opponent talks about come from? How did it get there? There is no answer to this question.<<<

Obviously science doesn't have an answer for this, though we are getting frightfully close to the answer. We can trace back to only a few seconds after the Big Bang, which is obviously very close. However, the thing is that once you get closer to the moment of the Big Bang, the physical laws start to break down and thus things get muckier. This is because at the singularity, Einstein's laws can't describe it and it's been readily accepted by physicists that all scientific laws break down at the point. In fact, there can be a totally new set of scientific laws (which brings into question cause-and-effect, etc.).

However, there are many plausible "pre-Big Bang" explanations and models. Also, there are several facts found in quantum mechanics that break away the assumption only God can be the "Un-Caused Cause":

1. Multiverse

The Multiverse[1] is a hypothesis that reality contains an infinite amount of universe, and from one universe another can spring from it. There are various "sub-models" describing how this can happen, such as String theory. While the empirical evidence is lacking (until we get those results from the LHC[2]), it is mathematically plausible. This is why physicists are starting to love the multiverse theory - it, along with string theory, fit's the mathematical equations so eloquently and explains everything. It's the new proposed "Theory of Everything" that Einstein dreamed about.

2. Virtual particles, Hartle-Hawking State, etc.

Virtual particles[3][4], are basically, particles that exist for a limited amount of time in space in a vacuum fluctuation. They are uncaused, and can't be observed (in fact, observing them will actually change the process). These particles do not have the required Einstein relationship between their energy, momentum and mass. They come into existence and blow annihilate themselves later.

Hartle-Hawking cosmology[5][6] is a wave-function that explains the initial conditions of the Universe. Classical cosmology is different from quantum cosmology. Classical cosmology is things such as the Big Bang, which explains the formation and development of the universe. Quantum cosmology attempts to explain the initial conditions and development/creation of the universe. The Hartle-Hawking state has been shown to fulfill the Wheeler–deWitt equation, which is a very important functional differential equation in theoretical physics[7]. This basically means any equation in quantum gravity/cosmology must satisfy this equation as a preliminary.

This is all I will give for now due to character limits.

=====
Why the Christian God?
=====

>>>Jesus is the only God who has revealed himself to our race. All other "gods" were made up by man. God showed himself to us through Jesus Christ.<<<

Ipse dixit. This is simply an assertion, you have yet to given proof for Jesus "revealing himself" to us.

>>>It is undisputed that Jesus really lived, and that he really died on the cross. This is not only written in the Bible, but throughout other documents of history.<<<

It would've been nice if you actually listed out the sources and developed your argument, but whatever. While Jesus Christ probably did exist, he did so as a PERSON. There is not much strong "historical" proof for his divinity (as many fairy tales have been written down as truth). If you gave a compelling case for the Resurrection, then perhaps you have something. Otherwise this is yet again a unproven claim.

>>>Jesus is the One, True God. He is the only way we could exist, much less the universe. Without God, there would be nothing.<<<

This is circular reasoning if you're trying to use this as justification for why only the Christian god is viable for the universe's beginning. It can basically be reduced to "only God can create the universe, therefore only God can create the universe".

My opponent probably quickly see's the problem with arguing that the Christian God is the only answer for the universe's beginning. In this debate, he has yet to even establish Christianity's validity or why the universe's creator NEEDS to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Can't a being with NEAR omnipotent power create the universe? Or maybe HALF omnipotent power? Why must a being with all power be the only one who can create the universe?

=====
Conclusion
=====

My opponent's argument has been horribly ineffective. I have shown how something can be uncaused, and other plausible scientific explanations for the universe's beginning. There is no need to insert a God.

Similarity so, his justification for why only the Christian God is the answer for the universe is presumptions. He has yet to prove the Christian God is true, and yet he takes it as a presumed truth. Even more shockingly, he even falls into a very obvious circular reasoning trap.

With so much errors and fallacies in my opponent's argument, his third and final argument has better be one of a high caliber. Otherwise, the vote goes to CON.

---References---
1. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www2.slac.stanford.edu...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.123exp-science.com...
7. http://www.123exp-science.com...
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Pro

Alright, well I would like to address the essentials of the debate, the nitty-gritty so to speak. What does all this really mean? My opponent and I have agreed to debate about whether or not God is the only option for the universe to have come into existence. I will address this in detail shortly.

My opponent actually concedes the debate. "Obviously science doesn't have an answer for this, though we are getting frightfully close to the answer. We can trace back to only a few seconds after the Big Bang, which is obviously very close." In this statement, he cannot answer the imposing question, how did the "initial" singularity come to be? He has no answer, nobody does. He does offer several theories. As I will show you, they are not viable options.

1- Multiverse

He says here that our universe could have sprang from another. One must ask again: Where did that universe come from? How did it get there? Again, there is no answer. The only option, is God.

2- Virtual particles

He says here that there are particles that pop into and out of existence. He also says that you cannot observe them, as it would contradict their meaning. How on Earth, no pun intended, would we know they existed, when we cannot observe them? There is, apparently, no evidence for them. So we just made up these particles that can pop into and out of existence? That is ridiculous. OK, so now you ask: "Well there is no evidence for God either." While some people never physically touch, hear, or see God, he does exist. We are here, aren't we? We could not be, unless he put us here. The fact that we exist is enough.

My opponent accuses me of circular reasoning. I believe my opponent mis-understands what this fallacy actually means. I am using simple, well-layed-out logic. We exist. There is no way we could have come to be without God. Therefore, God must exist, since we exist. This is simple deductive reasoning. This is supported by the fact that, despite my opponent's efforts, none of his theories are actually plausible. I cite no sources because I need no internet site to tell me what should seem obvious by now. Thus upholding my case, I conclude my portion of this debate. I thank my opponent for a good bout, and would like to urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you.
TheSkeptic

Con

>>>My opponent actually concedes the debate...He has no answer, nobody does. He does offer several theories. As I will show you, they are not viable options.<<<

How do I concede the debate? You yourself admit that I offer several theories and options. Stop quoting me out of context, because anyone who read my argument knows that I HAVE NOT CONCEDED THE DEBATE.

=====
Big Bang
=====

1. Multiverse

If you bothered to read anything on the Multiverse before attempting to refute, you would realize that since universe's would spring from others one, it's possible for cause-and-effect to be bypassed. How, you ask? It's because there are an infinite amount of other universe's, and in these other universe's they can have TOTALLY different physical laws than our universe, including cause-and-effect.

2. Virtual particles

We can observe the effects of virtual particles, we view them as quanta of one of the 4 basic force interactions[1]. Again, you should read up on the topic before attempting to refute it.

Also, have the voters note that my opponent has completely ignored the Hartle-Hawking state argument.

=====
Why only the Christian God
=====

Again, my opponent is trying to justify his circular reasoning - out of context. It is true he wouldn't be begging the question (circular reasoning) in any other case, BUT he was supposed to show why only the CHRISTIAN God can create the universe, and not OTHER gods. He has completely failed to do so, and his meager attempts to distort his lack of a response is quite amusing.

=====
Conclusion
=====

There's not much to refute because my opponent has simply no valid counterargument. His responses to my Big Bang-arguments are trivial; a simple research into each of the topics would have answered his refutations. Secondly, he has yet to even respond to the bigger question: why can only the CHRISTIAN god create the universe, and not others?

For these reasons, vote CON.

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Wait, the EFG bred?
Posted by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
epic fail guys
Posted by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
hey, go rougeagent,
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I gave several rebuttals to the idea that everything needs to have a cause, and he gave only petty responses that can be resolved by simply researching my said examples.
Posted by SuperPerfundo 8 years ago
SuperPerfundo
Skeptic, I thought Pro gave you A LOT of ground to work with as far as attacking God cause. I would have brought up infinite causality (God caused us, what caused God type of thing), since Pro bases their entire case on the necessity of God based on existence.
Anyway, I wonder at rogueagent's fervent belief in his religion, even if I think it is misguided. Takes a lot to be that committed to something. Still, thats more of a fault than an attribute.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Wanna debate about that?
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Hey Skeptic, no matter how close you get to the big bang science isn't there yet so you can't make assumptions, and we will never reach this point because, like the temperature of absolute zero, there are certain things beyond realistic reach no matter how close we get (4.2 billenth degrees away). Planetary evolution requires as much faith as creationism to believe and niether can be fully proved one way or the other, thus we call them faiths and beliefs and not facts. This issue will never be resolved untill the end of time. You can ask why, but then I'll ask why to the answer, then I'll ask why again and again untill we reach a point where there is no just or scientific cause, this is where our faith comes in.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Diebold 8 years ago
Diebold
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SuperPerfundo 8 years ago
SuperPerfundo
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
rougeagent21TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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