The Instigator
hohanian
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
TruthHurts
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Is God Real?

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...
TruthHurts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 894 times Debate No: 59844
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (9)

 

hohanian

Pro

Okay first of all, i just want to tell you that the only thing atheists have against God or someone who created the universe is religion, let me tell you something, religion is indeed man-made, but that doesn't disprove anything so please don't bring the bible in this.

Let's start!
TruthHurts

Con

I accept, noting that my opponent has the BOP to show that God is absolutely real.

I am unsure whether or not my opponent would like me to present an argument here, so I will leave it at that.

Present your argument, good luck, and I look forward to this debate!
Debate Round No. 1
hohanian

Pro

Fair enough. Everything needs a cause, for example, if I said who made that lamp, and you say no one, you will not accept that, so the big bang is also a good theory on how the universe started, but if you heard a bang sound, and you asked me what it was, and I just said it just happened, you would not accept that.

How was everything so perfectly made? I guess it was just a big coincidence, the chances of that are like me going to the lottery, entering, and winning.

I'm not doubting the big bang theory, i'm just simply stating it would need a cause like all other things.

And also to the first comment to this debate: I actually wanted to hear the response before starting the argument, and I did not tie my hands by leaving the bible out of this, religion is man-made, I'm looking past that. I'm not the guy debating christianity is better than atheism, i'm the guy debating God's existent.
TruthHurts

Con

Since my opponent has the BOP, I will move straight into rebuttals.

I. Cosmological Argument

My opponent's main argument is, effectively, a version of the cosmological argument for God's existence, which states, essentially, that creation must have a Creator. This argument can be represented as follows:

P1: Everything needs a cause.
P2: The Universe is a "thing."
C1: The Universe has a cause.
C2: This cause is God.

The main logical issue with this argument is that C2 does not follow from the premises or first conclusion. While I will not argue that everything needs a cause, and that the Universe, as a thing, has one, this cause in no way needs to be God. What this argument really comes down to is a "God of the gaps," which attempts to insert an infinitely complex, powerful, and knowing deity into the areas where science has not yet ascertained knowledge.

My opponent, to fulfill the BOP, has to show that ONLY God can be a cause for the Universe, and that there can be no other explanations. He has not, and cannot, do this.

This much is true: science does not yet have a definitive answer for what happened before the Big Bang. However, I have two explicit, scientific rebuttals to Pro's claims:

1) Something CAN come from nothing.

We see that, on the extremely micro scale of quantum physics, that particles do, in fact, sometimes create themselves from a quantum vacuum [1]. Note that the quantum vacuum is, essentially, the substrate upon which our universe (and, likely, multiple universes) is created. If this can occur, then it would seem at least plausible that the energy which matter manifested from to cause the Big Bang could, quite literally, spontaneously appear.

In fact, a recent mathematical proof from China demonstrates that, at least mathematically, the Universe COULD have been self-creating [2]. This means that self-creating explanations at least are plausible, which means that Pro cannot meet the BOP.

2) The Universe could be cyclical.

While this is by no means a firm scientific fact, many scientists have demonstrated that the singularity that spawned the Big Bang could be the result of the "Big Crunch," which was an implosion of an earlier universe [3]. Under this explanation, the Universe could be eternal, as it cycles repeatedly between expanding and imploding.

This is another, at least plausible, explanation that completely obliterates any chance of Pro meeting the BOP.

I would like to note that there are literally dozens of other theories regarding events before the Big Bang, and I will discuss more of them if it becomes necessary.

II. A Perfectly-Made Universe

I would like to first note that my opponent merely asserts that the chances of the Universe spawning conditions that could create life are incredibly low. Let's also note here that the Universe is really, really big, which means that, even in the face of very long odds, the unlikely can (and, indeed, almost will certainly) happen.

More importantly, though, if our universe is "perfect," than I would hate to think of what "less than perfect" means.

1) The Universe is incredibly violent.

When we look throughout the universe, we see almost perpetual violence. We see supernovae, which wipe out any worlds thousands of miles around, we see galaxies colliding, ripping apart stars, planets, and almost every other cosmic body, and we see black holes sucking up star system upon star system [4]. This degree of destruction, possibly of other life, is a far, far way from a serene, "perfect" world like the one Pro is imagining.

The Universe may sustain life for us, momentarily, but we are only a fleeting moment in the Universe's long history, and will be wiped out, if not by ourselves or other species, by the death of the Sun, in 2.8 billion years [5]. The Universe is a constant cycle of creation and destruction, on a scale of violence we cannot imagine.

2) Life on Earth is incredibly violent.

For such a "perfect" creation, humans have been incredibly violent to each other. In the source I give here [6], you will find a catalog of the atrocities committed JUST BY CHRISTIANS, with a tally of over 250 million deaths. Why would such a perfect Universe, a perfect Earth, allow for the mass killing of its inhabitants? This is poor design at its worst.

3) If the Universe is so perfect for life, then why is there not more life?

I have not used this argument before, but it is fairly straightforward. A perfectly fine-tuned universe would be one where life was plentiful. However, the vast majority of the Universe we have discovered thus far is incredibly hostile to life. This means that the Universe is actually not particularly finely-tuned for life, far from what you would expect from a perfect deity.

Conclusion

I have demonstrated that other explanations exist for the origin of the Universe, and that Pro cannot simply assert that God is the only logical source of life and creation. I have also shown that the argument from fine-tuning fails, because the Universe is not nearly as perfect as Pro would have you believe.

For these reasons, Pro has come nowhere close to meeting his BOP, and, as of now, this is a clear Con ballot.

Thank you, and I look forward to reading Pro's future arguments.

Sources:

1. http://profmattstrassler.com......
2. https://medium.com...
3. http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
4. http://www.slate.com...
5. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
6. http://articles.exchristian.net...
Debate Round No. 2
hohanian

Pro

Sorry I should have specified some more things in my last debate, I'm going to do it in this final round.

Something can come from nothing, of course, that's true, you're right about that.

There is no proof about the universe being a cycle, so I guess I can dismiss that theory, of course it's a possibility, but any theory concerning the universe's creation is also a possibility because no one knows how the universe was created, so if I just say a random theory about how the universe was created, you cannot disprove that because you do not what created the universe. Although in some rare cases it can be disproved.

Moving on to the violence part, of course it's violent, when I said perfect I didn't mean it was the most perfect place to live, I should have specified on this, I meant that everything was created perfectly such as Earth, everything a human needs to survive all on Earth. Life on earth is violent because people make it violent, again I didn't say the people are perfect, and I don't really care how many people "christians" kill, to me they're just people, nothing more nothing less.

You do not know if there is other life on other planets because you cannot visit them or send something there (other than mars), there may be creatures that are suited for life on other planets. Again you don't know if there is more life, for example if people go to mars and see there is no one there, they may be extinct, but they will at least find some clue of life to link to other creatures.

The majority of the world is corrupt because people make it corrupt, it's not because of the design of the universe.

I'm simply inserting there may be a intelligent designer of the universe, because everything was perfectly made, humans were perfectly made, but now does that mean they always make the right decisions? No, humans have the ability to make their own decisions. Death is apart of life, it's the challenge, killers are also a part of life, they challenge you, life is a challenge, it's a puzzle, you either spend your life doing good things, or doing bad things, the design has nothing to do with it, if you were to make a video game with free roam with multiplayer, and it's a game you can pretty much do anything (buy guns, buy houses, etc) would you make it a game with only people who can buy guns for no reason, and no challenge in the game, if there is no challenge in life, it's not fun, now I'm not saying getting shot or knifed is a fun thing to do, i'm just stating if everyone was immortal, it would not be fun. It shows you to protect your self, not to do crazy things, not to screw up your life by doing drug deals, doing something illegal, etc.

It's not like the universe will protect you from everything. Humans have the ability to make their own decisions, so it would be impossible to stop killing because death already exists. What you're suggesting is that death should not exist, the universe can't control the humans mind. Of course the universe does not know what humans are capable of doing so it would be impossible for it to stop them.

The world's design is craftsmanship at it's best.
TruthHurts

Con

This is one of the easiest Con ballots ever. I have shown that there are other possibilities regarding the origins of the Universe, which is in direct opposition to Pro's requirement to fulfill BOP by showing that God is the ONLY possible explanation for the universe.

In fact, we have a direct concession when Pro says, "Something can come from nothing,..you're right about that."

This means that I win, no questions asked.

However, I will move further into rebuttals, for anyone interested. I will do so in this round by quoting some portions of Pro's argument, and then responding.

I. Cosmological Argument

"There is no proof about the Universe being a cycle, so I guess I can dismiss that theory."

Firstly, if you read my source, there is some significant scientific evidence pointing toward this model. Second, even the plausibility of this theory negates your BOP. Thirdly, and most importantly, where is the evidence for God? Pro has presented exactly zero evidence that God exists, so I find it somewhat comical that he chooses to ignore a model for lack of evidence.

Note that I win the debate in this point; anything else is superfluous.

II. A Perfectly-Made Universe

"I meant that everything is created perfectly on Earth, everything a human needs to survive all on Earth...life on Earth is violent because people make it violent..."

Firstly, the idea that the only measure of perfection in the Universe is the living conditions on one random planet among the billions of stars, comets, planets, and satellites is patently ridiculous. I would think that such geocentric logic would have been abandoned long ago.

Secondly, why, exactly, does decent living conditions, but a barbaric species, demonstrate the existence of God? Why should perfection end with living conditions, and not extend to the species inhabiting such conditions.

Thirdly, with the plethora of natural disasters on Earth that regularly have killed scores of humans and millions of species, conditions on Earth are far from perfect and serene.

"You do not know if there is other life..."

The argument is that life would be much more common in a perfectly fine-tuned universe. This is not a response. You cannot appeal to lack of knowledge.

"People make it corrupt...humans were perfectly made."

So a person is perfectly made, yet, somehow, decides to make things corrupt and kill scores of other humans? Exactly by what mechanism could this possibly occur? How could a perfect human make an immoral decision?

I have shown that humanity is horrendously immoral, and Pro is deciding to just ignore this, and chalk it up to nebulous free will (though an omnipotent, omniscient God knows all events before they happen), and still claim that the Universe is perfect. This is patently absurd, and amounts to begging the question.

Pro continuously asserts that the Universe is perfectly crafted, but literally just ignores my arguments against that. This cannot stand.

He also chalks up massive killing and genocide to a "challenge in life," the absence of which would make life not fun. This is atrocious. A perfect universe may have death, but may not have horrendous immorality and killing on such a massive scale.

Conclusion

I have won by showing that God does not necessarily have to be the cause of the Universe, meaning that Pro cannot meet the BOP. In fact, Pro more or less drops my entire argument here, which is interesting, since it is the key argument in the round.

I have also won by showing that the Universe, Earth, and humankind are not perfectly-made, as witnessed by profound violence by all three entities.

Pro attempts to respond by begging the question and exploiting the gaps, but it is clear that he has not met the BOP in this round.

Vote Con, and thank you floor.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ Value_LLL: The Big Bang is called a Theory because it is currently the best Hypothesis of many Hypotheses.
It is the only one that explains why all bodies in our universe are accelerating away from a single point in space. It does not say that there was an explosion. The correct name for the 'Big Bang' is the "Big Expansion'. Nowhere in the Big Bang Hypothesis does it state that there was an explosion.
The Hypothesis states that we do not know what actually happened or how the expansion actually initiated, it only states that the Expansion (which is obvious) exists.
Observations and tracking of Cosmic bodies has confirmed this expansion, so it confirms the Big (Expansion) Bang.
So the BBT is totally confirmed by the Evidence of 200 years of observation, tracking all the movements of Cosmic bodies (Galaxies) back to a single origin/point.

Creationism has no such Observable Evidence.
Science states it does not know how the Big Expansion started and has thousands of Hypotheses as to how it may have started, with none of them accepted as Gospel.
Creationism accepts a God-Did-It explanation as Gospel, without any Evidence apart from something a Naive Sheep/Goat/Camel herder wrote 4000 years ago.

Thus Science is far more honest with it's "We Don't Know What Started The Big Expansion Because We Were Not Around At The Time!"

Than Creation with it's Extremely Less Honest "God Started The Universe Because a Book Says 'So!"
How do they know God did it, because the Writers were not there and their hearing God talking to them is more likely from Schizophrenia.

Thus Science is far more Honest and Truthful than Creationism.
Posted by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
Value_LLL, from your comment, it is quite clear that you have no real grasp of the science behind the Big Bang, or behind quantum physics. It is backed by observation, testing, and mathematical proof, which is substantially more than any other theory out there. What the quantum vacuum is does not require any creator, and is nothing insofar as there is no matter, just random ripples of energy.

This compared to a God that has no proof whatsoever. Do not conflate the colloquial usage of "theory" with the scientific usage of "theory."
Posted by Value_LLL 2 years ago
Value_LLL
This comment... "We see that, on the extremely micro scale of quantum physics, that particles do, in fact, sometimes create themselves from a quantum vacuum [1]. Note that the quantum vacuum is, essentially, the substrate upon which our universe (and, likely, multiple universes) is created. If this can occur, then it would seem at least plausible that the energy which matter manifested from to cause the Big Bang could, quite literally, spontaneously appear."

Is quite ridiculous. For starters, the page you link to your argument presents various information. Secondly, this is an appeal to authority even though throughout this link they talk about not knowing or being sure of anything. Third, nothing has EVER been witnessed being created from nothing, because of the fact of a couple of things... 1 being that there is never nothing within our Universe. You can think of all the matter, energy, etc... we have also observed that (As far as we can tell) physics works throughout the Universe, meaning that there is ALWAYS something. Further meaning that we cannot know because we cannot be certain of residual effects as it is still based within the Universe.

We also know that our Universe cannot spawn from nothing given what nothing means... not anything. If there is nothing, then there is nothing to be acted upon, something cannot come from nothing. Proponents of the Big Bang claim a quantum fluctuation, but choose to ingore the fact that THAT is something and is only theorized.

One other thing I find funny is that people accept the Big Bang as science. I am not saying that it is wrong or stupid or anything of the sort, but to call it science or to call it a truth based on what science has provided is factually incorrect and diludes science itself. Science by definition will never be able to answer the origins of the Universe question, to attempt to do so is futile and an attempt to persuade others is what makes it a byproduct of religion.. at least in that respect
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Every living organism is carrying flaws, human bodies have many flaws and immunity issues with certain types of pathogens.
There is no such thing as perfect design anywhere to be observed.
The Universe did not start from absolutely Nothing.
The only reason science says the universe started from nothing is that the universe itself did not exist, thus there was no time component in our universe. T=0.
Though this does not mean that there was no preexisting material in the Cosmos to build a universe from and indeed there was and always has been energy and matter in the Cosmos as well as an infinite number of other universes.

The Universe came from Nothing
Is the Same as saying a Cake came from nothing.

Because prior to the Cake being baked, it was not a Cake, it was a pile of ingredients.
Prior to the Universe being formed it was not a Universe, it was a mass of energy and matter, possibly infinitely concentrated.
Though now they think the Big Bang, was not a Bang at all, so they now some Cosmologists call it "The Big Quiet" or "The Big Silence".

http://www.newscientist.com...
:-D~
Posted by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
Hohanian - As I mentioned previously, I apologize for coming off as cocky. I did not intend to, but, upon reading my arguments, I clearly come across that way. I will be sure to correct that in the future.

However, do note that as the instigator making the positive claim you have the BOP, as I explained during the debate. What that means is that I don't have to disprove God (that is impossible, anyway). I simply have to cast doubt upon the resolution, and not allow you to prove the existence of God. In the context of this debate, you are the one that has to do the proving; I only have to rebut and negate.
Posted by hohanian 2 years ago
hohanian
To be honest most people who voted here were atheists and the con was acting very cocky, I wasn't stating god was the only reason that the universe was created, that's what the con stated and I agree with that, but he didn't disprove god.
Posted by hohanian 2 years ago
hohanian
Sorry for ignoring the main question, I got distracted by your other questions and all the rounds were over.

I will do a better job next time on each round on my debates. I'm fairly new to this site.
Posted by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
Fair enough on the conduct point, SocialistAtheistNutjob. Did not mean to come off that way, only meant to lay out the round clearly. However, I can clearly see how my phrasing seems arrogant at times. I'll try to clear that up in the future.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Kca and fine-tuning.... as always -.-
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Kca and fine-tuning.... as always -.-
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro should read "The Blind Watchmaker" as if a designer thought the universe was perfect then that designer must be blind. Most of Pro's arguments are from ignorance. Con's arguments were more rational, though some non-sequitur. Con also supplied sources where Pro failed to do so.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con destroyed Pro's cosmological & fine tuning arguments.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con was very arrogant early on, and especially in the arguments in the last round. Pro didn't attempt to meet their burden of proof and Con's arguments were sufficient to show God is not the only possibility. Only Con used sources.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rightly pointed out the god-of-the-tactics of simply asserting that God must be the cause of the Universe.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
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: God is JUST AS LIKELY to have created the Universe vs. any other scientifically credited ideas. God's existence is not required for us to exist (per the arguments listed below)
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument that the universe could not be created from nothing was completely dismantled by Con. Pro also failed to show that even if the universe did have a "cause" it does not follow that cause is God.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
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: con made a much better case, most of his evidence was unrefuted
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
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: Con gave a more complete rebuttal to Pro's arguments than Pro gave a case for God. Con rightly pointed out the cosmological argument was a non-sequitir and based off of too much ignorance, and wins by a large margin in the perfection argument. The points regarding Christianity seems to be irrelevant to the resolution.
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
hohanianTruthHurtsTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't even attempt to meet his burden of proof. Instead of trying to prove the existence of god, he appealed to lack of information as proof. Conduct: Con was unnecessarily cocky, declaring himself the winner after only two rounds.