I make the claim that a God exists
Debate Rounds (4)
Here are my rules:
No claiming "everything must have a cause". Causality didn't exist until after the Bing Bang, which means the Big Bang could have happened without a cause.
No claiming the Universe came from nothing. The Universe came from a singularity, which is something. According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, the singularity was a millionth of a billionth of a centimeter wide.
No word games. No playing with semantics.
No using wikipedia. It's a not a reliable source.
No using Creationist websites. They are proved to be complete nonsense.
No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean.
No adding new arguments as you go along. State your arguments in the first round and be prepared to defend them later. Do not try to flood the last round with new arguments that I don't get a chance to address. That's dishonest and cheating.
No using information without defining the way you interpret it. There should be no accusations about how somebody interpreted something wrong.
No cheaters, liars, cut and pasters, semantic players, definition distorters and people who don't understand what burden of proof means.
No profiles that claim they are 100 years old. I don't debate liars. Nobody under 18. I don't debate people who know everything.
God is defined as the creator of everything and the entity that knows and controls everything. It is responsible for everything that exists and happens.
Since my opponent will have the BoP, they may start the argument in the first round and may also have the last word in the last round.
Due to my past experience with vote bombs, and because DDO does not provide a way to block certain users from voting, I will kindly ask the following users not to vote on this debate:
1Devilsadvocate, 1Historygenius, adontimasu, Albert, AlwaysMoreThanYou, Anaxa, Apeiron, badbob, BennyW, BigSky, BillyTheKids, CharlieWBC, Chicken, ConservativePolitico, Consummator, DakotaKrafick, DoubtingDave, Dylip, Illegalcombatant, imabench, ishallannoyyo, IwinYoulose333, joseph.bazemore, just4trollz, KeytarHero, kingsjester, Korashk, KRFournier, lannan13, likespeace, lit.wakefield, Logic_on_rails, makhdoom5, MrVan, Nur-Ab-Sal, philochristos, po.osullivan, popculturepooka, ProfessorCNut, Ragnar, robertqiu, rross, samurai, SANTORUM2012, sbaik610, Smithereens, thett3, Typhlochactas, wiploc, x2MuzioPlayer, YYW, Zaradi, zezima
Thans to Qopel for instigating!
I will be playing devil's advocate in this debate, in order to improve my debating skills and to know better about the opposing side. I accept the BOP and the rules. As I hae the BOP I will provide evidence/arguments.
1. Argument from design/fine tuning
The world is near perfect. It is right in the centre (eh?) of the habitable zone , is full of life, and contains the right conditions for liquid water. There is a total of 1,740,330 species on Earth.  It is highly improbable for those to happen just by chance. Therefore, it is likely that there is a creator that created the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics shows that in a closed system, entropy can only stay the same or increase. The whole universe is a closed system, no energy or matter comes in or out. Usually, but not always, entropy=disorder.
The information above shows that the whole universe should gain disorder over time, but that means that the universe will just become more chaotic, not more orderly like the big bang says.
Therefore, the universe must be created, since an orderly universe requires energy from outside the universe to keep the entropy down, as that is the only way to reduce entropy in a closed system. 
I have given proof of a creator backed up with sources that are not creationist websites. The case for a creator is strong.
Now, let's get to the same old arguments that have been debunked over and over again.
My opponent wants to claim that the Earth has liquid water and is full of life. Yeah...so what? That doesn't prove there's a God.
Then my opponent claims that "It is highly improbable for those to happen just by chance."
So far, more than 2.4% of confirmed exoplanets spend more than 90% of their time in the adopted habitable zone boundaries.
Considering that there are over 200-400 Billion stars in this galaxy alone, and that there are over 100 Billion other galaxies in the Universe. Having planets in habitable zones, isn't really such a rare occurrence.
Even if it was a rare occurrence, that still doesn't prove there is a "creator" behind it.
Now to the next argument "Entropy"
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy is always positive overall in a closed system. That doesn't mean you can't have things that reassemble; it just means that overall you have more things falling apart than reassembling.
Probability shows that over time, you will eventually have things that assemble, (such as life). Mostly things fall apart, but a small percentage of things come together. Just like if you have a mixture of chemicals mixing around for millions of years, you'll eventually have complex molecules forming and still have a positive entropy because the heat lost from the millions of years of mixing more than makes up for the combining of chemicals.
The Big Bang started very hot and has spread out, cooled, and condensed into atoms, then into stars and planets. The spreading out of energy and the cooling of it is very much entropy. The Big Bang verifies Entropy.
Since this can happen naturally, no God is required.
Thanks for the "debate".
I'd like to point out that my opponent, being an Atheist, doesn't even believe what he's trying to argue about, so this debate is pretty much senseless.
Devil's advocating is an actual, legitimate, thing. It is to practice debating skills and to find flaws in both sides. It is not neccesarily senseless.
1. Fine tuning
My opponent claims that there are many planets that are in habitatible zones. However, the only habitatible and potentially habitated planet discovered is Gelise 581g, according to astronomer Paul Butler. Other potentially habitatible planets are too hot or too cold. Gelise 581g is tidally locked, making the possibility of life on it even less.  Although hypothetically, there may be more of these, but Qopel is putting the possibiliy of habitatible planets too high.
Then how did the solar system form? There was not a lot of energy put into the solar system, yet high entropy particles made a low entropy system? If lots of energy was coming in, then it is possible. But because the only energy was
friction from the particles, it is not possible for it to happen.
A closed system exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings.  Because the only thing the Earth receives is the energy from the sun, it is a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, so evolution which increases order, also could not happen. This futher shows that entropy is against a naturalist world view.
qopel forfeited this round.
qopel forfeited this round.
jh1234l forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 3 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: CVB from doubter -- telling people how to vote is not bad conduct and is used in almost every single debate round.
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.