The Instigator
TheMolestacher
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
AlextheYounga
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Religion is incorrect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
TheMolestacher
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,695 times Debate No: 27038
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (5)

 

TheMolestacher

Pro

I saw that you said no athiest ever beat you, so here you go. A debate to test that statment. The specificc argument is: Religion (ie. the beliefe of a god(s)), in all it's forms, is incorrect.
I'm not trying to come across as offensive, just trying to argue my beliefs.
You can start, good luck...

PS the round will be, opening and mechaism, main argument and closing/summary
AlextheYounga

Con

Hhhmm, okay. So all I have to prove is that the belief in a higher power or deity is correct. And I am in no way offended, I respect everyone's beliefs. This won't be too hard.
It's actually funny though. I started that argument where I claimed to be smarter than any atheist a long time ago, and I lost. I did not have enough experience to make such claims. But I am a man now, and there's wood to be chopped.

I will begin with the best argument (in my opinion) of all time for the existence in a higher power.

The Ontological Argument

  1. 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
  2. 2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
  3. 3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
  4. 4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
  5. 5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
  6. 6. Therefore, God exists.


Explaination: Basically what this means is that because God is a being than which no greater being can be conceived, he has to exist in the greatest possible world in order for the title of "greatest being that can be conceived" to still fit. It is impossible to argue that God can't exist in the mind; he can and does. We must assume that our reality is the greatest possible world, therefore, God must exist in the greatest possible world. So, if it is even possible for a miximal great being to exist, he must exist.
This one really is thinking outside of the box. You have to think about it for awhile.

Kalam Cosmological Argument.

  • Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
  • The universe began to exist.
  • Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.


Explanation: Cause does not mean purpose. Cause, in this sense, means the relationship from one event to the next.
It is impossible for there to be an infinite amount of causes for the universe. Nothing 'real' in our universe can be infinite. When I say 'real,' I mean tangible. Certainly ideas can be infinite such as Pi, which is supposedly infinite. Knowing this, there had to have been an initial cause or push; something outside of our realm of physics had to initiate the first cause. This cause must be a higher power or deity.

Objective Moral Argument

  • A human experience of morality is observed.
  • God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
  • Therefore, God exists

Morality, no doubt exists in the human world. Throughout history, acts such as murder, theft, rape, ect. have always been seen as evil. The only explanation for this is God.

Argument From Contingency
Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist). In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause. This cause must be some kind of higher power or deity.

Fine Tuning Argument
There are over 50 physical cosmological constants (basically equations that had to equal a certain value) for our universe to form properly and support life.
To stress the importance of how perfect these constants had to be in order for life to form, think about this analogy:

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37.

Your friend would have had to pick that red dime 50 times in order for the universe to form properly, and for life to exist. That's how perfect these constants had to be. If even one of these were to not equal what they equal, life would no exist and I wouldn't even be here to make this argument.

This argument does not prove the existence of a deity like the others, but it does support the idea of one. It supports that the universe was finely tuned.

Pascal's Wager

  1. "God is, or He is not"
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
  4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
  5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
  6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.


Some people don't like this argument because they say it appeals to emotion. If anything, in my opinion, it most definitely appeals to logic. Logically, believing in God has to be the best choice.

Those are all of the arguments I have. I will be very, very surprised if you can debunk all of these.
Good Luck! :)



Debate Round No. 1
TheMolestacher

Pro

First of all, I'd like to thank you for accepting the argument and would wish you the best of luck in the rounds ensuing.
Just to clarify, I am not trying to make you change your beliefs, only argue my own. Ok so on with the debate.Your first point shall be rebutted first...

The Ontological Argument rebuttal.
This argument is based on the theory that because a god is the maximal being in the mind, he must also be in the physical world. You said that because no greater being can be conceived of one that fits the title of god, he must exist in the greatest possible world. And because he exists in the human mind he must also exist in what the human mind takes to be the greatest reality. Our reality (tell me if I misjudged your point!). This whole argument is based on an assumption. That because we conceive him to exist in our mind, he must be real. In my opinion, god is a figure created by humans to give them assurance over the unknown. Most believe it wrong to think we are the greatest beings to exist, and perhaps we are not, but because some assume it, it does not make it true. Science can prove our existence. Science cannot prove the existence of a god. Science cannot prove that on Uranus there is no race of giant smoke breathing dragons, but because it cannot yet be disproven, should you assume it to be true? No. Personally I think one day science will be able to disprove an existing deity other than one created by human thought. Which brings me to a point of my own.

The uncertainty principle.
I know this is a theory in particle physics, but I believe it describes a lot of the arguments used pro-god quite well. Basically a lot of people follow religion because either they think that because it cannot be disproven, and seems to be logical in some senses, it most be true. Other times devote their life to a religion for more sensible reasons, like the fact that many people are scared of death because they don't know what will happen afterwards. So they give their life over to religion in order to calm that fear. Anyway, my point consists of three main arguments.
> If something cannot be disproven, that does not make it true.
>Blindly following devoting your life to something is illogical.
>Every thing can be explained in the absence of a deity.
I think I have already made the first two points, so the third. It can. Everything can be explained via M-theory or Quantum gravity or which ever is ultimately a TOE (theory of everything). I will weave this argument into the other points I make to rebut yours.

The Kalam cosmological argument rebuttal.
>Anything which exists has a beginning and an end. (Time does not technically exist)
>The Universe was created via the collapse of a universe prior to our own.
>Therefore, the universe, is the cause of the universe.
Explanation: If you are familiar with universal quantum dynamics you will know that a lot of evidence suggests that our universes sudden explosion and expansion was caused by an elastic effect of a previous universe. This theory ties in with string(M) theory and is viable according to all know evidence. It means that before ours, was an infinite number of universes, each of which expanded, reached an elastic maximal, and collapsed in on it's self again. The force of this collapse cause the expansion of another universe identical to it, and so on. effusively, the universe exists to create it's self. The universe was created by the universe, so that it could create the universe. Complicated I know, but viable.

Objective Moral Argument rebuttal.
>Morality exists because of social ideologies.
>God is no matter how you look at it, responsible for murder and theft if he is the only explanation for morals.
>Rape has not always been seen as evil
First of, morality is not a physical thing. It is an ideology brought on by social and racial influences. At many times, almost no morality existed in many societies. Take Neanderthals for example, killing fellow tribe members has been proven to be a normal way of settling disputes in the tribal yet, according to your argument, god creates morality. If he created morality then murder and rape would be seen as normal now, as he, being all knowing and all powerful, would not change his work nor would he have made those things to begin with. Also, if god is the reason for the creation of everything, then he - no matter how you look at it - is directly responsible for all murders, rapes and thefts ever committed. Thus if your points are true, religion should be shunned as a worship of a criminal. ( again, not being mean, just my thoughts on things.)

Argument from Contingency rebuttal:
This point is essentially covered in one of the earlier arguments. What is stated in this point is true. What is assumed is not. The cause of the universe does not have to be a deity of any kind. It could be, and according to all recent evidence is, essentially a loop. I.E. It was created by it's self to create it's self.

Fine Tuning Argument rebuttal:
This entire argument was based on an analogy. The fact of the matter is you are correct with this point. That is roughly how likely it is to have a universe created. However what you infer from this information is not correct. You say that for existence to be created, some all knowing being must have aligned the cosmological constants perfectly to create the universe. A correct explanation for this is that because the existence of the universe/macroverse is ultimately dependant on the last, the math would dictate that each time the cycle of the universe is completely identical. The time continuum is infinite. It has no parameters and so never began, and will never end. The expansion and collapse cycle of the universe will never cease.

Pascal's Wager rebuttal:
This argument is not a reason as to why a god exists, it is an argument as to why to be religious rather than atheist. It is just saying that religion will result in a better life style. In many ways this is true, but in more it is not. Devoting your life to something that may, or may not exist. You say that if you are wrong you lose nothing, but you do. You lose a life you could have spent living the way you truly want to. Want to in your unconscious rather than devoting your lives to the teachings of something that has a 99.9% chance of not existing.

Thank you for taking this debate, and I again wish you luck.

P.S. If I came across as insensitive there, sorry. It's hard to believe someone's religious views are wrong and tell them and be non-offensive while in the process of doing so. But I tried.
AlextheYounga

Con

Well, I don't think you fully understand the Ontological Argument.
It basically proves that if even a maximally great being could exist, which most scientists agree that it is probable, then a maximally great being must exist. If a maximally great being could exist in some world, a maximally great being must exist in all worlds. The mind was an example of a type of world it could exist in.

Most of your previous argument is based on the premise of multiverses, which scientists have proven could not have happen. Three scientists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, debunked this in 2003 by creating experiments in which to test the theory of multiverses. They concluded that this could not possibly happen, and that there had to have been an initial singularity, and that multiverses could not occur

And since I'm sure you will be referring to the Big Bang later on in the argument, I would like to show some of the many flaws of the Big Bang Theory.
  • It defies the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
  • It relies on the existence of dark matter, which has little evidence to exist.
  • It relies on the premise that matter can be created from nothing.
  • Our Big Bang relies on the premise of multiverses, which have been proven cannot happen.
  • It defies logic, for logically, something cannot come from nothing.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Obviously since the entire argument of the Big Bang is the creation of matter, the Big Bang defies this law.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that explosions can never create order, only disorder. The Big Bang being an explosion, defies this law.

Dark matter has been hypothesized as basically, the missing mass of the universe which is supposed to exist. (Basically the gap in all of their theories) Dark matter is only a hypothesis and has very little evidence for its existence.

Scientists define "nothing" as empty space, and not necessarily nothing whatsoever. Even scientists realize that if you have 0 matter, you cannot spontaneously have a 1 value of matter. Scientists have hypothesized that our Big Bang occurred from empty space that exists off of another multiverse (which they say could possibly have a totally new set of physical laws)
But the Vilenkin-Borde-Guth experiment has eliminated the possibility of multiverses, and that there had to be an initial singularity.

And finally, logically, nothing cannot create something. Just think about it, if you have 0 of something, you have 0 of something, no more.


Rebuttal of some of your statements:
Basically a lot of people follow religion because either they think that because it cannot be disproven

This is not true, for the existence of a deity can be proven, as I explained in my arguments above, therefore, people can believe in religion because it is possibly correct.


>Blindly following devoting your life to something is illogical.
As I explained with Pascal's Wager, it is not illogical, for there is something to gain from devoting your life (which is also a very biased statement, for one does not necessarily have to give up anything to gain the benefits of the salvation)

(Time does not technically exist)
Why yes sir it does! Lol, look at your clock. In about 60 seconds you'll see your clock change. That is the existence of time, and time can even be used in equations and calculations.
Another thing that proves time does exist is when an object is accelerated to intense speeds, time begins to change. Did you know that Russian space astronaut, Valeri Polyakov, is actually a couple seconds older than everyone else on Earth? When objects are accelerated to intense speeds, time begins to move faster.
Also, black holes even have the ability to pull on not just space, but time itself, meaning time may be increased when going into a black hole.

At many times, almost no morality existed in many societies.
This is not true. It has been shown all throughout history that humans have always had a sense of morality. In fact, the very first laws ever written show evidence of this. The Code of Hammurabi were the first written laws ever written, which prohibited murder, rape, and theft. In every society, there has always been evidence of morality.
You used the example of Neanderthals killing each other to settle arguments. People do this today, and we still realize that this act is wrong. Neanderthals were known for burying their dead in certain positions. This shows that they probably felt sympathetic for the dead.

A correct explanation for this is that because the existence of the universe/macroverse is ultimately dependant on the last, the math would dictate that each time the cycle of the universe is completely identical

Actually this isn't correct. Even scientists as famous as Lawrence Krauss has stated that if there was the existence of multiverses, that they could each have totally different physical laws, meaning that the math here, may not be the same math in another universe.

In fact, it might well be that the multiverse contains universes with every possible set of laws. We have the laws we do simply because of the particular universe we’re in. But, of course, the philosopher can respond that the multiverse itself is governed by higher-level laws.
-Lawrence Krauss

And this argument is not based on an analogy, the analogy is an easier way to understand the basis for the concept of how perfect the equations had to be in order for all life to exist.

You lose a life you could have spent living the way you truly want to. Want to in your unconscious rather than devoting your lives to the teachings of something that has a 99.9% chance of not existing.

This is a very biased statement. Being religious does not destroy your happiness. Go ask a preacher if he thinks he is wasting his life. He will most definitely say no, because he obviously wants to live that way. You are insisting that people will not be able to live the life you want them to live. If a person wants to live a certain way, it is their choice.
And your whole 99.9% statistic is very, very biased. I have already proved the existence of a maximally great being, and the existence of an initial push.

Debate Round No. 2
TheMolestacher

Pro

First of all, I don't think you fully understand the Ontological argument. It is a complete and utter assumption. To say that a maximally great being could exist, it must exist is illgical. Granted it may be true that a maximally great being could exist, that is what the debate is about, but that can in no way be used as evidence in this debate. It hardly even makes sence. I'll give you an example. Magical pandas specially suited for the cold could live on Pluto. It's entirely possible. But much like a god, it is extremley unlikley. I personally don't think this could be used as evidence for either side so I am going to leave it now.

Multiverse rebuttal:

    • The infinite universe model probably is correct and according to all calculations is.

    • The scientists you used against me, I.E Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilken argue a new point of mine.

    • The Big Bang does not defy the laws of Quantum Thermodynamics.


First off, I will congratualte you on almost taking down the infine universe span argument, though you used the term multiverses incorrectly. Multiverses are Universes which exist at the same time and with the same laws of physics as all others. It is thorized that this argument is true. Google it :) But the infinite universe span argument I feel you took down almost completley. Right, down to Buisiness. First, the three cosmologists you used in your argument did not debunk that argument. They debunked the fact that the universe could be infinite into the past, in other words, they proved the universe had a beginning. Our universe is not the same universe as it's predessessor. And would not act as such in calculations. My argument of an infinite span therefore holds.
When a universe collapses in on it's self, all matter is technicaly destroyed and revrted to energy. The energy is not destroyed nor created in the ensuing "explosion of matter." Thus, the same amkunt of energy will go into every universe, it is that energy that forms elementary particles ( particeles with no sub-structure, and are made up of only themselves) which once they cool to below about 170 MeV, a temperature at which free quarks and gluons cannot exist, thus they are attracted by color confinement into mesons and baryons. So it does not defy the first law of thermodynamics. The second law, that an explosion can only create disorder and never order. This is because the word "explosion" is used in a non literal sense. It shows how fast the universe expanded from only energy. Vilekin has even been quoted to say "If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning." So I think I debunked that well.

Rebuttal for rebuttal:
You tried to rebutt my statement saying many join religion becuase a diety can be proven. When I have just proven that a diety cannot be proven. I am also going to leave that Pascal's wager thing because it has no relevance to the debate.


You tried to argue that time does exist. When I said time does not exist I meant as a physical thing asnd thus is not affected by the lws of physics. Dreams happen but it would be rediculous to say they exist. In that sence of the word anyway. Time follows Stephen Hawking's no boundary proposal, that is finite but without any real boundary. Like a sphere. It is finite in surface area yet it has no real start or end. In other words it can be taken to have finite space ( not physical space of course) but no start or finish. Easy to understand but hard to imagine. Time also appears to speed up at close to c because of this. As you move faster, time which has a set pace and at higher speeds it is possible to ove along the space-time contniuum. And black holes do not have the ability to pull on time, black hles pull things in with such a force that even light cannot escape it. At the centre of a blackhole all the matter that has been pulled in is probably crushed into a superdense singularity which will ultimatley collapse in on it's self.

The code of The Code of Hammurabi is evidence of laws of the Babylonian period. However societies existed before that. Take the homo erectus colonization of europe. This dates back to 1.8 million years ago. They were legiable umanoids and survived much as we do now. Making housing nas shelter, killing and eating. Yet like I said disputes were settled in the tribe by killing each other. They did not honour these dead. Much less so infact, they were given cruder brurials if any at all and almost no morlas did exist in those societies. God did not create morals. If he did, there would have been no holocaust, there would have been no world wars. Human morals are brounght on by social deologies. This is the correct and only viable explanation for morals.


Your argument about the multiverses is totally seperate to what I said. The multiverse is the hypothesis that an infinite number of universes could exist in multiple dimensions. Lawrence Krauss proved that the physical constants in each universe could be different. However I am not talking about the macroverse. When I said "A correct explanation for this is that because the existence of the universe/macroverse is ultimately dependant on the last, the math would dictate that each time the cycle of the universe is completely identical" I meant not the multiverse which is how you incorrectly interperated it, rather I meant and said the cycle of the specific universe would be the same as the one which created it. So your point is redundant.


So onto your next peice of rebuttal. The argument is an analogy. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. You did correctly use that analogy, and you kind of argued my point. That is how perfect the cosmolgical constants have to be in order to create a universe. That is how perfect they are every time as the cycle of the universe is the smae, everytime as I have already proved.


Your final peice of rebuttal. You said that I implied I wanted people to live life the way I want them too. I never said that. I said that I wanted people to live their life like they want to, becuase this is their only life, and it is short. Following someone's teachings is not how you want to live your life. It is how someone else who probably isn't real wants you to live it. ( I said 99% only to give the point that there is a high chance there is no god)
And don't say you wnat to live your life like that, becuase though you may be happy, youa re not following your own initiaive, you are giving your only life to a possibility.


Finally some points of my own and a summary.
First of all, some physisists like Raj Pathria or I.J.Good have proposed that our universe is the centre of a black hole, inside a different unoverse, which is the centre of a black hole. I don't think either of us have a leg to stand on when it comes to blackhole thermodynamics. We are in highschool. But the point of this argument is that everything can be explianed in the absence of a deity. Everything. There is no physical need for a deity nor is their a physical possibility of a deity. Like you said yourself, you cannot create something out of nothing, and God must have a begining, so what made God? In my opinion ther eos no God.
Afew questions for you though. Why did you chose christianity over all the other religions? Greek mythology has been dissmissed as fictional, but it could be, by your standards, true.
And if there is a god, why did he make me an atheist?


Summary
It s the opinion of the proposition that there is no God or deity otherwise as everything can be explained in the absence of a god but Gods cannot be proven at all. Thank you and I encourage you to vote for the proposition.
BTW, that was an awsome debate, thanks!

Will put sources in the comments







AlextheYounga

Con

You're right, I misspoke about the Vilenkin-Guth-Borde experiment. It did only debunk that the universe had an infinite span.
The quote you used from Alexander Vilenkin seems to be out of context, so I cannot know what he said to support that argument. Fortunately you provided me with another quote from Vilenkin using your sources. :)

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."


Another interesting fact is that many theists use his books to support their arguments of everything coming into being from "complete nothingness"

But I'm not going to touch on science anymore. My head hurts and I really don't need to touch on science anyway, since philosophy supports my argument more anyway.

By the way, I'll leave out the Objective Moral Argument. You handled that one pretty well, and there is always the possibility that evolution somehow could've caused its existence. I never really liked that argument much anyway.

And yes, haha, I forgot to add last round that you are correct. If God created good he did create evil and every major atrocity that has ever occurred. But that makes the world interesting, doesn't it? And I can't answer why he made you an atheist. Maybe he knew you would meet me and I would convert you...haha just kidding.

Ontological Argument Revisited

Your magical panda bears analogy doesn't make much sense and has no relevance to the argument.
The argument argues that if a perfect being were indeed possible to exist, it must exist, because existence is a quality of perfection.
So if a maximally great being even could exist, which you even stated that it is true that a maximally great being could exist, then he must exist.

Fine Tuning & Contingency Argument Revisited

But much like a god, it is extremely unlikely.

You stated that God is extremely unlikely, yet the universe says otherwise. As I explained before, the cosmological constants show that the universe is very precise. It is very unlikely that it all occurred by chance.


I just want to show my analogy again, because it's still amazing to me how crazy this is.

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37.

This also ties into the Contingency Argument.
It is still a possibility that the universe under different circumstances could not exist. The mere fact that it does exist (and exist at such perfect specifications) must have a cause.Even if the universe has always been here and never had a beginning, it still owes its existence to a cause.

Kalam Cosmological Argument Revisited

This argument is related to the argument from contingency in that it still shows that universe must have had a cause for its existence. There is no way around this. There was a beginning, therefore it has a cause; a God or deity.

Summary
My opponent has tried to debunk the existence of God stating that the universe could have existed with the absence of a God, and that the existence of a God is very unlikely, which is false.
Most of the above science is based on hypotheses and contains many gaps (religious texts do too, but that's not what we're arguing, lol)
Philosophy and logic, however, do not. There's an old quote by my favorite economist, Murray Rothbard:
"...statistics cannot refute logic."

So logically, there must have been a God, or a deity to create the initial cause for our universe.

Thank you for this argument. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by giraffelover 3 years ago
giraffelover
Babyy again? Babyy isn't a real person, it's a spambot. NEVER trust Babyy. As for the universe expanding until an infinite amount of time has passed, that's not logically possilble, since infinity is a concept but not a real number.

Proof? If I had infinity video games and wanted to give AlextheYounga an infinite number of video games, what are my options? I could keep ten video games for myself and give the rest to AlextheYounga, and so infinity minus infinity= 10
I could give him a third of my video games, and so infinity minus infinity= 2/3 of infinity.
I could give him half of them, and so infinity minus infinity= 1/2 of infinity.
I could give him all of them, and so infinity minus infinity= 0
Or I could give him all my video games except 50, and so infinity minus infinity=50
How can infinity minus infinity equal almost anything if it was a number?
Posted by TheMolestacher 4 years ago
TheMolestacher
And for the record, based on recent studies, I now withdraw my argument about previous universes as our universe has been accuratley measured to be flat, I.E it will never close, it will continue to expand until after a point at which infinite time has passed. For the record that's a different thing to expanding forever.
Somehow.
But I remain an atheist.
Posted by TheMolestacher 4 years ago
TheMolestacher
Which one of us?
Posted by babyy 4 years ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Non theistic countries dont have these trivial insecurities that ultimitely lead to denying human rights, hurting people, and telling lies. Check out the 2009 Global Peace Index. Really smart people did some lengthy investigative work that show a clear correlation between Non violence and Non theism, go ahead and veryify that, and then ask yourself this so you can catch up, when is it going to finally be considered ridiculous to everyone, 100 yrs, 500 yrs, 5000 yrs, because we already know more and more young people are recognizing it is in fact, ridiculous to buy into sky daddy stories based on current research. How long till everyone grows up? :)

What is DNA? DNA is a molecule that contains an organism"s genetic information, which is passed on from one generation to the next. When a cell reproduces, it copies its DNA almost exactly.

In human reproduction, half of the DNA comes from the father and half from the mother. This is why you share many characteristics with your parents.

DNA has the famous double helix structure. Each molecule is made up of 4 chemicals called bases: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine, which are sometimes abbreviated to A, C, G and T.

Which species have it? DNA is found in all known living organisms, from complex animals like chimpanzees and humans, to single-celled organisms like plankton in the oceans.

The same 4 bases occur in the DNA molecules of all these types of organisms. Also, the A, T, G and C bases always occur in a similar sequence from one end of the DNA molecule to the other. This is evidence that humans are related to every other species on Earth.

The genes of organisms that look very different are surprisingly similar. For example, human DNA sequences are over 95% identical to chimpanzee sequences and around 50% identical to banana sequences.

CaptainObvious 8:15--The first commandment "Thou shall not perform fellatio on any gods before me", should be a warning youre dealing with a cry baby pansy :)
Posted by alvarezd41 4 years ago
alvarezd41
Hi everyone,
I would like to give you hope and tell you what I have been revealed by our creator. 1st let me start by saying that we are our creator's most treasured and beloved creation. We are all extremely valuable and we all hold the knowledge of creation inside each and everyone of us.

God is inside everyone of us. We are all eternal beings, this means we have always been and will always be. When in doubt look inside of you and you will find the truth. It has always been there. Our true self exist beyond this existence. If you truly want to know god all you have to do is remember and let the truth come out and embrace your true self for we already know god and have always known him.

Don't get caught on the lies of this materialistic world.

We are already closer to our creator than anything else in existence but we must learn to look inside and trust for he exist within you.

Peace and love be with you my eternal brothers. I truly love you all.

We are all connected.
Posted by cmkasemichael 4 years ago
cmkasemichael
I don't believe that God exists. The Fine-tuning argument actually disproves God in my opinion because it shows that everything is so unlikely that it had to be just luck (I know that's not a good reason). Pascal's wager is the best argument for God. The Kalam argument can also disprove God, I hate that argument with a passion because theists' answer is always that God didn't begin to exist, God always has existed. There is just no way to prove that. Anyway, good luck and good arguments.
Posted by truthseeker613 4 years ago
truthseeker613
@ TheMolestacher

You wrote :

"Creating the universe is the greatest achievement conceivable of ,no? "

According to your definition of achievement, the answer is indeed, "NO".

Simple as that.

This argument is actually mentioned by Dawkins in his delusion book.

It was a topic in the religion forum a while back. http://www.debate.org...

And, most people thought it was a joke, and those who took it seriously poked holes in it.

That's how bad that argument is.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
How to be illogical:

1) Everything is so complex there must be a creator, therefore jesus christ is my savior, or allah is my savior or whoever.

2) Theres no way we just cam from nothing, therefore, the reason for everything supports human sacrifice.

3) The earth is just too perfect of a distance from the sun and gravity is just right, therefore the reason for everything ordered moses stone amna for picking up sticks (Numbers15:32-36)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

BigKids 2:11--The Mandelbrot Set is one of many countless discoveries, that make it clear the beautiful, mysterious nature of life, and the reason for everything is NOT the smurfs, zeus, a virgin promiser or a pansy temper tantrum flood boy :)

TRIVIA 10:20--Whats longer, the list of diseases known to man or the list of apologies and excuses for the disgusting, and vile passages in the holy binky? :)

Ideas 4:3--Museums are a great weekend activity to truly bless your children with the truth instead of sundays consistent poisoning of the pansy written in the holy binky that throws temper tantrums :)

WAKEUP 4:12--Religious leaders know that the corrosive effects logic and reason present to religious doctrine must be curtailed by mocking science as somehow incompetent :)

THOUGHTS 7:23--Whether or not evolution happened is NOT the question, we know it did, we just dont know exactly HOW. Its like knowing that a tsunami broke a levy, we dont need to know just exactly how the levy broke from the tsunami, to know the tsunami broke it :)

Ideas 6:5--Here's an idea. Grow up and leave the outdated bronze aged beliefs written in the holy binky where they belong, with the leprechauns at the end of a rainbow :)

DevientGenie 8:8--The correct term for the Genies scripture is, Poetic Incorrectness, because although the true scripture is poetic in its use of the truth, its currently considered not nice to simoultaniously make fun of the holy binky :)
Posted by staraa 4 years ago
staraa
i am also in favour of this. As religion just create differences and divide us. Moreover they divide God even .
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
TheMolestacherAlextheYoungaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con because pro gave an argument ont he last round. Spelling and grammar was more or less equivalent. Arguments: Both misused their own sides strongest arguments and misunderstood even the weakest of the other side's arguments. Both cosmology and philosophy have been completely mishandled. Sources-Con. Neither actually linked a source, but at least Con mentioned an external source (the scientists he names) which could be checked on.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
TheMolestacherAlextheYoungaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: The title of this debate was "Religion is incorrect" but both debaters argued over theism and atheism, not religion. They both deserve to lose for arguing off topic.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
TheMolestacherAlextheYoungaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, this was a highly informative debate, and I think I really could learn a thing or two from this. If I wanted to. But anyway. Conduct goes to Pro. This is because a new argument in the last round is not equal to, or at any rate, does not compare with, the misrepresentation of a source. S/G is a tie. The arguments were incredibly close, and I can't decide who to go for. Therefore I will leave it at a tie. The sources, of course, go to Pro. This is because Con misrepresented his source.
Vote Placed by truthseeker613 4 years ago
truthseeker613
TheMolestacherAlextheYoungaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with BobbyYaz it was very close. Conduct was great on both sides exept that pro added an argument in the final round, and con misrepresented the Vilenkin-Guth-Borde experiment. So I guess there equal. There were S & G mistakes on both sides but pro made more. (I'm also bad at spelling, use spell check. If you'd like I can show you the errors) Pro seemingly did not understand the ontological argument. On the other hand he took care of the argument from morality. Kalam Cosmological Argument / contingency argument was played well by both sides. technicly I think pascals wager could have been used, since the resolution was, "Religion (ie. the beliefe of a god(s)), in all it's forms, is incorrect". But it seems con let it go when pro correctly pointed out it is not evidence of god but mearly a reason to practice religion. It's too close to give either one full credit. If I could I would give 2 to con and 1 to pro. Both used equally reliable sources.
Vote Placed by BobbyYaz 4 years ago
BobbyYaz
TheMolestacherAlextheYoungaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: it was close, very close. lots of good information from both sides but i have to give a win to Pro.