The Instigator
SubjectiveMorality
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Edvin_321781
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God most likely does NOT exist (Copy)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
SubjectiveMorality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 41119
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

SubjectiveMorality

Pro

I simply do NOT hold the belief that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists until proportional evidence is presented. For instance, there is a box. We haven't opened the box yet. So we have no sufficient justification to prove the claim that it contains anything.

REMEMBER:
1) Presentations
2) Rebuttals

He definitely exists in the faith of individuals, though.

Nonetheless, it is possible. It is just most unlikely.

Also:
1) "Christians believe their God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will.""

2) "They also believe their God is omnipotent, and can do anything. Problem is, if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery."

I have derived these from my Atheist friend. He is no longer a Deist (Belief in a God who does not intervene).
Edvin_321781

Con

Who do you think made the Universe? Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Could you answer these questions? Just want to know. Then I'll begin debating.
Debate Round No. 1
SubjectiveMorality

Pro

"'Could you answer these questions? Just want to know."

Yes, definitely.

"Who do you think made the Universe?"

Noone.

"Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?"

No.

Please do remember that not believing in a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality does NOT equate to believing in the Big Bang theory (The theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature). I believe that the Universe was not finite.
Edvin_321781

Con

Thanks for answering these questions.

First of all, if you believe that noone created the Universe, why is it in such complex, fabulous form? Someone had to create it.

I agree that Big Bang theory doesn't exist. But someone had to create the Universe.

For instance:

If a barrel explodes, its surroundings will fly away but can not go in correct order. Therefore, Big Bang theory is not real and someone had to create the Universe.
Debate Round No. 2
SubjectiveMorality

Pro

In the Standard Model of particle physics and General Relativity there are about 23 "constants of nature." These are numbers, often measured to high precision, that are put in "by hand" into the equations of physics to get them to describe our universe.

Physicists claim that these 23 constants of nature must be finely tuned to nearly exactly the values they have in order for our universe to be complex. Were the values very different we would not get stars, galaxies, complex atoms, chemistry, or life. We might get a universe that flashed into existence for an instant then disappeared. Or we might get a universe that expanded so rapidly that all that would exist would be hydrogen in a starless empty space.

I want to make two initial points in this first blog on the subject:
First, and critically to the subject of these blogs, the fine tuning of the constants of nature are at best a necessary condition for the universe to be complex. They are absolutely not yet a sufficient account of "why the universe is complex," the main purpose of these efforts.

Second, we face the profound issue of "why" the constants of nature are so finely tuned. Since we have, at present, no THEORY for the values of these constants, put in by hand, physics has the following choices:

God tuned the constants of nature.
If the values of the constants were very different, life would not have evolved, so physicists would not have evolved to wonder why the constants of nature are what they are. This idea has led to the postulate that we live in just one of vastly many universes, a "megaverse", the constants of nature have different values in different universes, and we happen to be lucky enough to be in a universe with the "right" values of the constants of nature. This view is called "The Weak Anthropic Princiiple." The term, "Anthropic" stands for the fact that we live in a universe where life and physicists could evolve. A fine discussion of this view is in Leonard Susskind"s The Cosmic Landscape.
Our one universe somehow evolved the values of its constants, and perhaps its very laws, such that the universe we live in is the only universe and is complex. I want this view to be true. For it to be true, there must be processes by which the laws and the values can both evolve. I hope to discuss this in later blogs.

I return to the primary question of these blogs: Why and how did the universe become complex? And I make a final point in this short blog. Eric Chaisson, a Tufts University physicist, in Cosmic Evolution has shown convincingly that the energy density per gram tissue per second increases in cosmic evolution, for example in stars, in the evolution of life and in the evolution of or cultures. The data look convincing. Now energy per unit time is power, so Chaisson is talking about a power density per gram increasing in cosmic evolution.

I take Chaisson"s data, and ask: How in the world might that increase in power density have occurred? We"ll start trying to answer this in subsequent blogs.
Edvin_321781

Con

To be honest I agree with you. But let me ask you a question do you know who Jesus is and do you belive in him. He is the God's son. You might not belive that but there was proof that Jesus is real. Because people do not belive in him bad things happen to us.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SubjectiveMorality 3 years ago
SubjectiveMorality
1. God tuned the constants of nature.

2. If the values of the constants were very different, life would not have evolved, so physicists would not have evolved to wonder why the constants of nature are what they are. This idea has led to the postulate that we live in just one of vastly many universes, a "megaverse", the constants of nature have different values in different universes, and we happen to be lucky enough to be in a universe with the "right" values of the constants of nature. This view is called "The Weak Anthropic Princiiple." The term, "Anthropic" stands for the fact that we live in a universe where life and physicists could evolve. A fine discussion of this view is in Leonard Susskind"s The Cosmic Landscape.

1. Our one universe somehow evolved the values of its constants, and perhaps its very laws, such that the universe we live in is the only universe and is complex. I want this view to be true. For it to be true, there must be processes by which the laws and the values can both evolve. I hope to discuss this in later blogs.*
Posted by michael90000 3 years ago
michael90000
Actually, I would like to point something out in the debate. This is pertaining to "free-will." Events that will happen in the future are caused by the free-will of others. God may foresee this in the future if he has not prophesied it in the bible, but it is not for him to intervene. The era of God intervening has been the past before the era of Jesus Christ. However, you can pray to keep the people you love safe. Just wanted to point that out.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SubjectiveMoralityEdvin_321781Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments as to why he believed a god most likely does not exists and Con never challenged these points. Pro also answered Cons questions,except for the last question but that was the ultimate round so it was impossible. None of the debaters used citations and so those points are shared. I also found both debaters very cordial in their arguments.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
SubjectiveMoralityEdvin_321781Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Sadly this ends in a concession. Pro brings up the argument from evil and this remains uncontested. Pro also brings up and refutes fine tuning. In the end con chooses not to refute anything and offers a concession to pro. A cut and clean debate.