The Instigator
Mike430522
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

It is impossible to prove either way how the world was created: God or Godless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,679 times Debate No: 7366
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (11)

 

Mike430522

Pro

Name says it all. Basically, if I were to be completely impartial, you could not convince me either way how the world was created. There is inconclusive proof of either of the following parenthesized events happening (creation either with or without some God-like figure to create everything).
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, lets begin.

For the first round, I will speak shortly. Without God, the universe could not have come to be. Until my opponent provides another way for our existence, I must go by this. I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Mike430522

Pro

I probably could not convince YOU how this happened, because you are obviously very headstrong in your beliefs ( I mean this in the nicest way possible ), as am I... and this debate (I can tell) is going to go very similarly to the last one. The debate isn't to say how it happened, this debate, from my side of the argument, was that there is no substantial evidence as to how it happened, meaning that quite possibly that it could have " just happened". I am not saying that the "Big Bang Theory" is more or less plausible than creation via God or some other god-like figure. What I am saying is that I can NOT present accurate proof and neither could YOU, for our respective points. I'm saying that: "it is impossible to prove either way how the world was created: God or Godless". I did not want this debate to become an argument where you say God, and I say Godless. I wanted this to become an argument, in which, we debate evidence, and the presence, or lack of it. Do you have any evidence for your side?
rougeagent21

Con

Science is the study of natural laws. If you would, recall Newton's Laws, as well those of thermodynamics, and conservation of mass and energy. "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed during the process of a chemical reaction." This is science. Now notice, that you exist. You are here. How did you get here? Well, people have tried to explain this for a long time. The Big Bang? Flash Particles? Creation? Given the above rule, the only way for us to have come about is through a God putting us here.

==BIG BANG==
"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread."
OK, so the universe sprang from a dense singularity. Where did this singularity come from? How did it come about? Well, using science, we can only assume that-if the big bang were true-it would have to come from God. There is no other way the singularity could have come about.

==Flash Particles==
The same theory applies here. These particles must have come from somewhere. Since they could not have come into existence by themselves, God must have made them. Since they could not exist within science, a Supernatural must have created them.

==Creation==
This is in fact how the universe came to be. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. There is no other option, since according to science, matter, energy, light, and others can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, God must have made the matter, energy, light, and so on. There is no other scientific explanation. That being said, I conclude round two. Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
Debate Round No. 2
Mike430522

Pro

Thank you for using reliable sources... well at least one was, the non-wikipedia one.

Those are very convincing arguments, but I have seen them before. The one thing we know about science though, is that ideas and theorems are always changing, based on other observations of phenomena, and the application of ideas. While you have just proved those theories wrong, you have proved them wrong based on what we know about scientific laws now. An good example of a belief that " everyone KNEW was TRUE" but was easily proved wrong was: The Earth is flat. Now we know that this is completely false. I know that this is a little like comparing apples and oranges, but the idea still applies. The ideas of some supernatural being, inventing the universe don't change based on new observations. Science, on the other hand, is constantly changing to allow for differences in observation. This is a major flaw in the whole "supernatural" idea, as far as I know, a new book hasn't been written in the bible, since Revelation was written by John. Back then they explained floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural disasters by thinking " WOW! That was so extraordinary, and giant that couldn't have been made by nature or humans, so it must be God! ". We now know that floods are simply a by product of storms, earthquakes and volcanoes are made by the contact of tectonic plates. If you think like someone in biblical times you could see how everything could seem like God's ( or Satan's ) work. Another thing I've wondered, if God created Adam, who made dinosaurs and they're fossils? If they were made at the same time, you would think that, we would have fossils which have human bones in them, from the dinosaurs having a tasty snack... as far as I know there has been no excavations showing humans even in the same million years as dinosaurs or even in the same area.

Thank you for the debate, you truly did have very convincing arguments.
rougeagent21

Con

Prove
–verb (used with object)
1.to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument

This debate comes down to this definition. Can we prove if there is or is not a God?

During the last round, I presented evidence for God. My opponent completely agrees, with one exception. He says that it is valid, BUT, science constantly changes. He gives the example of the Flat Earth theory. There is a problem with this, either way you look at it. Let me explain.

-There was no evidence to back this theory. The theory was only based on myth. They had no "proof."

-Now, even if you did say that they had proof, then the Flat Earth was in fact proven. Please refer back to the definition I provided. If they had evidence then they could prove a Flat Earth. THIS IS BASED ON CURRENT EVIDENCE. We cannot know what might change in the next century, but only what we know RIGHT NOW.

Now, my opponent said that he agreed with my evidence, but said that it could change. He actually concedes the debate right there. In order to "prove" something, one must have evidence. Since he agrees with mine, AND PROVIDES NONE OF HIS OWN TO COUNTER MINE, he concedes. Given this, I would urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
C: Tie.

S & G: Tie.

A: Since Pro conceded that Con had proved God's existence using current evidence, I'm voting Con.

S: Con, as only he used sources.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Well if it works...
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Yeah, I should copy-paste all my counterarguments too.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Last time I checked skeptic, if an argument is true, it is better to be repeated. Some people don't catch on the first time, eh? ;)
Posted by Tom_Tom47 7 years ago
Tom_Tom47
Mike430522, about your "why don't we find human bones with dinosaur fossils"...because they use the bathroom too
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
ok
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Eh, rougeagent21 just constantly recycles the same overused arguments again and again.
Posted by Mike430522 7 years ago
Mike430522
I might Diablos, but I'm getting bored with this debate honestly.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Hey Mike, challenge me to this debate when you have time alright?
Posted by Mike430522 7 years ago
Mike430522
Sorry I meant to say: Agent, when you finished the last one, did you vote for yourself? I did, if you didn't do it, then do it so its even. Sorry about that last comment being stupid I'm tired as... (insert profanity here)
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by hauki20 7 years ago
hauki20
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by ronmorgan 7 years ago
ronmorgan
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Mike430522rougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70