Is the belief in God(s) equally plausible as the scientific explanation for the origin of life
Debate Rounds (3)
Because of the inability for science or religion(we are only human) to provide adequate evidence for supposed events, we will not debate the validity of possibility of the Big Bang or religious events or anything specific(Both are easily disproved as a result of uncertainty), this argument is designed to show us all that we really don't KNOW as much as we think, and must leave the room of possibilities to those things that can't be absolutely proven incorrect, such as our origin or purpose. RESPECTFUL AND THOUGHT PROVOKING DEBATE PLEASE
There is plenty of evidence for "supposed events" such as the Big Bang, such as gamma radiation and universal expansion. This is not to say that the Big Bang is a completely infallible theory. It has many holes that need explaining. This is not to say that you can simply fill them with god. Science is the process of finding these answers.
CS Lewis had said, "Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It"s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can"t trust my own thinking, of course I can"t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
Thomas Aquinas had said in his fourth of five proofs of god,(similar to what Aristotle and Plato had said long before.
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause
2. nothing finite and contingent can cause itself
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length
4. Therefore, a First Cause(or something that is not an effect) must exist
Personal thought provoker
-What is science but the explanation of mysticism, is the world any less mystifying or unfathomable knowing that what is came to be in a logical process. For as much as we know, there is so much we still don't or won't.
Tboning forfeited this round.
INANGERWELOOSETRUTH forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Didn't agree with Con's statement that God is opposite of logic, but Con corrected that in his last argument, his using God to fill gaps that science is trying to resolve does ring true, C.S. Lewis did not understand Evolution, if he did, he would know why his concepts had flaws, and Aquinas made his statements out of unverified assumptions only, not knowledge, so Pro did not convince me with using statements that have been defeated many times.
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.