How can God have alwas exisited?
Debate Rounds (3)
Think of a circle. You can't find it's start point, but you can't find it's stopping point either. It goes on forever. But because you can't find where it began, does that mean it doesn't exist?
That's where most Atheists' make their arguments. They expect everything to be handed to them in cold, hard, realistic facts; who's to blame them? Not everyone can believe with pure faith; some just need convincing (however, I'm not trying to make people believe).
Let's get back to that circle. Because you can't find it's starting and ending point, do you not believe in it even though all evidence of it's existence is before you?
Take the accepted Big Bang Theory, for example. It states as follows: "The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day."
Taking it into consideration that scientists don't know where this "singularity" came from, how can they believe that the universe came from it? Perhaps God was always there, created the singularity and the outcome of it, and let time run it's course on it.
God could have always been there, but it has been proven that he is not needed to create the universe. The universe is constantly expanding. The start of the universe without a god is supported. If there was a god, he has just been watching and not interfering with anything happening in the world.
Let's think about a god creating a universe for the human race: humans have only been able to observe less than one percent of the entire universe. Our equipment has only been able to travel to parts of the universe that still make our universal observation less than one percent. There are parts of the universe that we are almost guaranteed to never observe. We will never be able to observe more than one percent of the universe. Our sun is one of more than trillions of stars. The universe is way too big to be just for us. Consider this: let's say the universe is the average twelve inch ruler: our galaxy doesn't even cover half of a single line of the universe. Why would a god create such a thing for us? We won't see most of it. What a waste of his time
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: First thing first, to both sides, USE SOURCES. Second thing, ORGANIZE YOUR ROUNDS. Now, I think that Pro showed pretty poor conduct in his 3rd round (practically giving up on arguing). Con's rebuttals were pretty much uncontested, and Pro never supported his arguments.... I do not think that either side deserves arguments (because of poor structure, no support for them, etc.), but Con did do a better job with them. Conduct and arguments to Con.
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.