The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Is the belief in God(s) equally plausible as the scientific explanation for the origin of life

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 49418
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




From what we do "know"(Because there are a limited and finite number of absolute truths A=A), there is no evidence that either proves nor disproves the existence or compatibility of God within the structures that are(Universe and the Rules it abides-physics). Contrary, due to the nature of the information we do "know", I am more inclined to believe that there was some supreme force(God) that set things into motion(possibly Big Bang).
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


When logic is up against the absolute opposite of logic (god), as god is everything that logic isn't, there is no way that logic can win. This creates a situation where both sides have to argue with "lack of logic," which, once again creates a situation where logic cannot win. However, the problem with the argument for god is that one cannot use logic for defining god without breaking the fact that god cannot be defined and is everything that logic isn't. This leads to an infinite paradox in which neither side can win the argument. Since an argument is not based in logic, there is nothing within the realm of logic that can defeat it. This makes the argument for God just as effective, from a logical standpoint, as the argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that A=A does nothing to support your claim, as it comes from an assumption that everything has limits, and therefore refutes God.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


You say God is opposed to logic, you take too seriously the semantics behind this argument. Perhaps it is more rationale to believe that God created "what is" through the creation of the 4 fundamental energies and several known and unknown types of matters, all of which are hardly understood today. The causal effect would then logically and systematically continue as is true with causal effects(determinism), one leading to the other. Logic, like the scientific method, is a standard and instrument with which we conclude fact, rationality is based on what logic is available. God cannot be defined, this is logically true. Yet rationally speaking neither can science and logic be completely defined. For we can only measure and observe the effects of the First Causation (presumably the Big Bang) through scientific method and logic which we follow toward the causation, yet science can never reach this cause(a good and simple rationale for this can be found in the second quote on the bottom). I have no quarrels with the possibility of the Big Bang, despite its many holes after the chain reaction, but rather I cannot believe that this is the answer of all answers to our origin. The math supporting the BB theory can only hold true while excluding any consideration of previous existence while affording the existence of the necessary foundations, not the least of which includes unfathomable amounts of energy and matter. Monthly discoveries are taking place that are redefining the laws of physics, discoveries which are changing how we view reality and certainty and the reach of our previous logical laws beyond our perceptions. The fallacy of scientifically founded logic is that you must believe their is an answer for the effect, you ought to be able to inductively conclude the cause yet there is no practical mathematical function that can explain something as simple as how zero becomes something. Even nothing is something, it is the lack of things in a space, yet what structure facilitates this volume of space and what supports that structure. Scientific logic is doomed to uncertainty in how things came to be, the nature of a thing, but it does a wonderful job of explaining the effect of any given cause yet the original causal effect lays beyond logic and understanding, only possibility. We can only rationalize our possibilities, of which their are many. And so our ancestors developed philosophy, the study of the nature of things, in order to explain that which is beyond the realm of science and logic. And so I conclude, that the belief in god is just as possible if not more reasonable than the belief that we can find answers beyond the big bang, despite our present standing.
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.
Debate Round No. 2


INANGERWELOOSETRUTH forfeited this round.


I would like to apologize for saying that God is the opposite of logic because that is not true. God is completely detached from logic. But here's a question for you: if you don't believe that the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, what makes you think it was God? Why does it have to be a cognitive and all powerful being? That is the extent of my third argument because it expands into so much more.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
BTW: Religion was actually a hijacking of natural human wonder.
Such as in tribal times, the tribe would sit around the campfire and discuss their wonderment of the stars and how they got there and some elderly Megalomaniac,either wanting attention/worship, or had a hallucination would claim to know why the stars and life happened and thus rattle off a story that sucked the others in. So suddenly he became the tribe's Shaman, Witchdoctor, Base of Wisdom.
Thus Religion was Born.

Very likely Abraham was one of these Megalomaniac con artists.
People still believe his lies, that he used to gain followers.

This is why Religion is the world's biggest and oldest Con Game!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Yes, Karl Marx as does any psychologist, realize that part of being human is to wonder about how we arrived at life and basically what is life and consciousness.
Science is gradually gaining an explanation for both origins of life and consciousness that may become theories in the near future by themselves as evidence to their truth becomes available and reproducible.

They have already developed oil based cell walls and living cells in experiments, as it appears that early single cell life may have started with oil based cell walls.
Neuroscience is gaining incredible insights into Consciousness that may unlock the entire story in the near future.
It's all happening quicker now, but still too slow for my liking, I want that information right Now! XD~
Posted by INANGERWELOOSETRUTH 2 years ago
Karl Marx thoughts on religion are interesting. I particularly like how he describes religion and why it is, something all non-believers ought to read to give fair perspective from an oppositional view.
"It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." -Karl Marx
Posted by INANGERWELOOSETRUTH 2 years ago
To some extent my argument is in accordance with yours, i agree that it is just as likely, probability wise,for a donut or spaghetti monster or the Yeti himself to be the causal force. Yet as rationale beings we can deduce, just as science's greatest and most taught theories are, the rationale explanation. I do not pretend to understand the form shape or identity of this "God", it would be contrary to the point I'm making to assert. Beliefs like yours are what inspired me for this debate, why must God and not the Science hold the burden of proof? neither has an adequate answer to be considered a "Truth" as i pointed out in my argument. Many people choose to personify God but don't realize that many people including myself and other deist like Benjamin Franklin aren't religious and have an equally viable opinion of what the actuator is. I have provided validity for a probabilistically equal difference between believing in God and not. The argument of justification for the existence of "God" is immense and detrimental to humanity in many respects, a discussion I would be happy to have if your willing.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Pro DOES realize that the first cause argument, even if we accept its truth, proves almost nothing?

The "proof" doesn't establish any necessary criteria for the prime mover. So, why do we have in mind some sort of diety? Void itself could have been the thing that started the universe. A strawberry donut could have started up the universe. Each of those are just as likely as some sort of personal deity that we mean when we say "god".

The existence of such a strawberry donut would not need to be explained either in terms of causation, for the same reason religious people shy away from providing a justification for the existence of "God".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
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: 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.