The Instigator
Loveshismom
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
Sagey
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 13 votes the winner is...
Sagey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,017 times Debate No: 49935
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (477)
Votes (13)

 

Loveshismom

Pro

I will be arguing that science can support God's existence and surprisingly, REQUIRES God to exist. Examples:

1. The Big Bang could not have happened without God. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. How do I know I am not contradicting myself? Because scientific laws only apply to physical beings (i.e. Us). God is a spiritual being (John 4:14) and is all-powerful, so physical law cannot apply to Him.

2. The theory of evolution states that life originated from non-organic matter. This violates not only Biogenesis, the scientific belief that living matter can come only from other living matter, but also the cell theory, which states that "all living things are made of cells" and that "all cells come from preexisting cells." Additionally, it claims that many rocks collided and formed earth. If so, how did that happen? Did they randomly pop up where they would orbit the sun? One could say that God made them. But again, God is omnipotent, so He can make things happen that scientists would never believe.

I have shown that there is room for God in science. Your turn, Sagey.
Sagey

Con

Thanks Pro for this Impromptu Debate XD~

I will demonstrate clearly that there is no place for Magic/God in Science and there can never Be a Scientific Theory that includes God. Because a scientific concept that includes God cannot possibly be Scientific.

Firstly a rebuttal of Pro's opening points:

Point 1:
Pro states: "The Big Bang could not have happened without God. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed."

Firstly: In that Case God itself violates the law of Conservation of Energy in that energy cannot be CREATED.

Secondly: The source of the Big Bang as far as Science is concerned is a Big Honest, Don't Know?
As science never professes to be able to answer everything, and something that occurred billions of years ago is a big ask for any study to predict or determine a reason for the event.

The Theory That Our Universe Is Simply The Product Of a single or two Unstable Black Holes Colliding to Form an Explosive Singularity.

Though the God Did It Concept totally and definitely violates the Conservation of Energy Law.

http://www.nature.com...


http://www.dailygalaxy.com...



Point 2: Pro states: "The theory of evolution states that life originated from non-organic matter."
No it does not, Evolution only deals with changes in living organisms.


Though I will tackle Abiogenesis, which is not far from proving the nonsense of Biogenesis wrong and how Cell theory is irrelevant later.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

http://www.patheos.com...


http://www.colorado.edu...


Here is a little clip about God Creating the Universe:



Thanks again Pro.

Enjoy!!!

XD~

Debate Round No. 1
Loveshismom

Pro

Counterpoint 1. "God... Violates the Conservation of Energy Law." This really does not make a difference because since God is not a physical entity (John 4:24,) He has no government under man-made laws. Even assuming that God exists, there is no scientific disproof that he is a spirit. Additionally, God is not magic.

Counterpoint 2: "The Theory... A single or two Unstable Black Holes Colliding..." If this theory is true, then where did either of these black holes come from? Did they simply pop up out of nowhere? Does this not also violate the Law of Conservation of Energy? If this is true, then God created this black hole/these black holes. And I will point again to John 4:24.

Counterpoint 3: The theory of evolution's many unseen flaws are shown here: http://www.ldolphin.org...

If we did not evolve, Then it is required for God to exist because we must have been created.

Conclusion: God is not governed by laws that humans made, you still can't prove otherwise how the universe came to be, and there is scientific proof that we did not evolve.
Sagey

Con

Thanks Pro!

Pro states:"This really does not make a difference because since God is not a physical entity (John 4:24,) He has no government under man-made laws."

Creationists stupidly believe that God created Energy and Matter out of Nothing, apart from being totally impossible and massively improbable, it destroyed the Law of Conservation Of Matter, so if a God exists, the Law of Conservation Of Matter cannot really be a Law.

Thus Pro nor Science could not use it as an argument nor a principle which completely dismisses Pro's Argument Out Of Ignorance Fallacy.

Pro evidently did not watch nor understand the Video I posted in my previous argument that addressed Pro's question precisely, thus the question has already been answered.


A God creating a universe out of nothing is infinitely less probable than the Universe being the product of a pre-existing Black Hole or Dark Matter (steady state theory). Occam's razor slashes Creationism to pieces.

On who created God? This cartoon answers that precisely:


If any unseen flaws are found in Evolution as all Evolutionists aware of Creationism would have read your sources, they would become worldwide news and those finding those flaws would be Rewarded, maybe even get a Nobel prize.

But, sadly for Pro, no such flaws are Real, they are all Fraudulent, because they would have been tested as all suspected flaws are tested. Scientists would love to find flaws in Evolution.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...


http://scienceblogs.com...


If there is a God, it is certainly not from the Bible, there's too many Flaws in it!

http://infidels.org...


http://rationalwiki.org...

It is so easy to understand how the Biblical God is a Violation of Science, it Violates Science and even reality in its own Scriptures!!


Thanks again Pro: Back to you now!
Debate Round No. 2
Loveshismom

Pro

Firstly, I will point out that you have, in a few ways, proven YOURSELF wrong.

1. Since your video shows God being killed and going to some higher heaven, you have proven one of my points: that He is a spiritual being, thus also proving that He can break scientific laws if he wants to. And assuming that there are indeed spiritual beings, science has no concern over what they can and cannot do.

2. "A God creating a universe out of nothing is infinitely less probable than the Universe being the product of a pre-existing Black Hole or Dark Matter (steady state theory)." Sorry, but it is really the other way around. The steady state theory's problems are as follows:

2a. What are the odds that these black holes actually met? Try encasing two vacuums in cardboard, putting them at the bottom of a large glass container, and make sure they are activated. Their nozzles should also be facing the bottom of the container. Then fill it with clear gelatin. Do they ever come together? No.

2b. How did they come to pre-exist? If so, then how? The steady state theory implies that they randomly sprang into existence. Not only does it not specify where they started, thus leaving it possible for them to never meet, but It also violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, which again, God can break if He wants. There is therefore no other explanation for how they came to exist. God made them.

2c. If the universe has been expanding for billions of years, then how big were the black holes? They could not have pulled that off, no matter how big they were as every every explosion will stop at some point.

3. You disregarded my use of the scientific method entirely. All you had to do was post that video and my point was proven: God is spiritual. Therefore, you have left my use of the scientific method valid.

4. Assuming God is real, He had no beginning and no end. If somebody made Him, then who made his maker? Who made maker #3? And so on and so forth.

Your turn.
Sagey

Con

Thanks Pro:

Pro states: "Since your video shows God being killed and going to some higher heaven, you have proved one of my points:"
I think you missed the point of the Video, in the end all the Gods were nothing more than the creation of the Human Mind.
It does not pay to watch sources through Foundation Bias or Confirmation Bias Goggles, as you will always miss points.

Yes, we have Gods that can break any scientific law that they want to, in movies and comics, but such a God has absolutely no evidence for nor connection to reality.
My earlier conservation of energy and matter video covered this if watched without bias goggles installed.

Regarding Black Holes: Scientists believe that they have evidence of Black Holes that pre-existed our universe, so the Black Hole Theory has now infinitely more credence than the Creation theory, they now believe that the Universe was spawned from a Hyper-Black Hole.
If the evidence is verified concerning the pre-existing Black Holes, your Creationism Theories are destroyed forever.

So the following will answer all your black hole questions:

http://math.ucr.edu...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...


http://www.nature.com...

Pro states: "You disregarded my use of the scientific method entirely."
Pro has made these arguments limited to 2000 characters, too short to state why I don't believe Pro understands what Scientific Method is.

This is why I have to resort to using URLs and Videos, because Pro deliberately made the arguments too short for a good argument. For a reason is beyond my understanding???

On the Scientific Method Pro did not apply properly, a method that was developed by Monks!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...


Thanks again Pro: Your turn!




Debate Round No. 3
Loveshismom

Pro

I have too much to get out of my brain to fit into this round, so I will just sum it all up in videos.

Point 1: Evolution is ridiculous. This video is full of believable, reasonable, viable, provable, logos-filled reasons for that.

-http://m.youtube.com...

Point 2: "If the evidence is verified concerning the pre-existing Black Holes, your Creationism Theories are destroyed forever." Thank you for the tip, Sagey. I will show that there is no real verification for the evidence. Black holes are not real, as shown here:

-http://m.youtube.com...

If there are no black holes today, then there is no way that any black holes pre-existed outside of God making them.

Point 3: Science can actually support God's existence, as shown here:

-http://m.youtube.com...
-http://m.youtube.com...
-http://m.youtube.com...

The burden of proof is now on you, Sagey.
Sagey

Con

Thanks Pro:

Though firstly posting videos of Kent Hovind a Naive Science Teacher who knows nothing at all about Evolutionn and really should be ashamed of himself, instead of Arrogantly pushing Pseudo-Scientific Nonsense.
There is no such thing as Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution nor Stellar/Planetary Evolution, etc.

They are all wrong, and have nothing to do with the Fact Of Evolution. Yes Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nas.edu...

Young Earth Creationists especially like those who make a comfortable living out of spreading it like manure on toast, such as Kent Hovind, as being a Creationist spokesman in Naive USA, makes him much more money than teaching Science.
There is more money in spreading nonsense than teaching Truth, Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are proof of this. They both feature in my last Video!

http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com...

Kent Hovind is a very amusing, comical personality, but he knows less about The Theory of Evolution than I did at Ten Years of Age, some Science Teacher. I Believe Kent needs to go back and complete Secondary School Science. He might learn a lot.

Reasons God Exists Video: Makes Many Bad Assumptions, science never said the Universe came from Nothing, Ever.
This fact destroys the entire Video. Science only said it did not know what came before the Big Bang, but that is changing. Essentially the Video is nothing but a collection of Fallacies.
Nothing in the God of wonders by People deprived of real scientific knowledge really proves anything at all for your case.





Why God is a violation of Scientific Physical Laws:


Next I will demonstrate that Genesis is WRONG!


Thanks Pro: Your Turn.

Debate Round No. 4
Loveshismom

Pro

Point 1: There were no "random accusations" in my videos. They all had this necessary principle behind them: everything that ever happened had a cause. If this is true, the Big Bang had a cause if it happened. The question has become "How did the Big Bang happen, if at all?" Answer: all the matter in the universe gathered up into one spot and exploded, scattering things around a vast universe. A question in one of my videos was: "Where did that matter come from?" This question must be answered. But as I stated before, there is extremely high evidence against the Big Bang. And as the Law of Conservation of energy states, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang theory also clearly violates this law by stating that an explosion that started out no bigger than a period created a universe that is constantly expanding. The random appearance of this matter also violates the same law. For these reasons, science will never explain how the matter came to exist. The existence of God has now been rendered scientifically valid, but since there is so much evidence against God, there is now a religious paradox, a very confusing kind. But as I stated earlier, "real" science will never explain the Big Bang, which means now that only what you refer to as "pseudoscience" can explain the Big Bang. Therefore, religious beliefs have won the paradox, and thereby requiring a deity to exist. But if everything had a cause, how did God come to exist? That question is needless. What you should be asking is: "How can I know God?"

Point 2: Genesis and other creationist beliefs are true, and there is hard evidence.
-http://m.youtube.com...
-http://m.youtube.com...
-http://m.youtube.com...
-http://m.youtube.com...

This video also lays waste to evolution directly.
http://m.youtube.com...

Point 3: whatever shows that evolution is not true supports creation, which in turn supports God.

Vote pro.
Sagey

Con

Pro's Fallacy Filled Videos Do Nothing To Disprove Evolution, They Only Demonstrate That the Authors Don't Understand Evolution.

The prime reason I did not answer Pro's false attempt at scientific Deduction Is:

Because his PremiseThe theory of evolution states that life originated from non-organic matter. Is False, then his conclusions will also be False. He lost that one in his opening statement.

Here is the Renowned Biologist, PZ Myers explaining the History of Pro's Creationism.

Yes, Creationists cannot divorce themselves from the fact that they are still following Ellen White's Hallucination from Brain Damage.

The Reasons Including God In Science Only Violates Science is:

Scientific Enquiry Relies On Predictability Of Outcomes: Including any alterations from any intelligent agency, Destroys Predictability thus Violates Scientific Enquiry.

As Pro stated in his opening Argument: God is omnipotent, so He can make things happen that scientists would never believe.

This is exactly why God cannot be included in Scientific analysis.

Such an agent would make scientific predictions or Theories impractical, Science would become a Guessing Game as to What Law God Will Violate next.

Scientific Inquiry would be useless and scientific predictability would be Non-Existent.

Thus Pro Indicated and Admitted In His Opening Argument That God Would Violate Science.

Is the Universe fine tuned for Life/Us?



The Scientific Knowledge Of The Bible is Inept:

Flat Earth, Solid Dome above it with Stars glued to the Solid, Pillar Supported Dome (Heaven), which fall to Earth when Shaken: (Many Passages).



An Accurate Genesis:


To consider such knowledge as a part of scientific knowledge would not only Violate Science, it would also make Science EXTREMELY STUPID.


Thanks Pro for the Awesome Debate!

Debate Round No. 5
477 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 3 years ago
Loveshismom
I don't need u
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I haven't dodged any questions.
All have been answered.
And answered factually.
Posted by Loveshismom 3 years ago
Loveshismom
Question-dodger
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
It doesn't matter what you think, really.

I worked in Horticulture where biogenesis happens constantly, almost in front of my eyes.
succulents are excellent at biogenesis,
Just a small amount of a section of a leaf put on some moist soil or medium and pretty soon it will be growing a new plant. These cells all seem to behave like stem cells, they produce whatever parts the plant needs, roots, stem and leaves, all from a small section of leaf.

Stem cells are an example of biogenesis.

Worms can reproduce both sexually (male & female) or asexually (by themselves).

The reason most mammals reproduce sexually, is because it gives better survival against pathogens (diseases).
If an organism only reproduces asexually, without exchanging genetics, as soon as a disease figures out how to kill the organism, it is doomed, because there is no variation to break the disease's onslaught.
Because we mix our genes by reproducing sexually, the disease has a harder time figuring out how to defeat us and because we get a break, it gives us time to develop immunity, which an asexual reproducing organism would have a harder time doing.
Posted by Loveshismom 3 years ago
Loveshismom
>:( I think ur doing both
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I don't mind if you are here to actually learn something.

But you are evidently not!

I've shown you much, very good, educational information and you either refuse to read it or cannot understand it.

Then you make idiotic assertions and statements that demonstrate that you have not learned anything at all.

Trying to educate you is like trying to educate a BRICK!

I'm glad my students have all been easier to teach than you.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
No, I am being Honest.

It is stupid to argue pig headed (as if you know something) about things that you so obviously know nothing about, except some propaganda you have picked up from others who also know nothing about the subject.

That goes for anybody, not just you.

If you don't have a good knowledge of something, don't pretend that you do!
Posted by Loveshismom 3 years ago
Loveshismom
I think you're trolling
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
She thinks loveshismom is a nutjob for even trying to argue about things he has absolutely no knowledge of.
Loveshismom would be better off arguing about spiderman and Mario than Evolution.

Because every time he argues about Evolution, he only makes himself look more Ridiculous to those of us that know at least something about Evolution and Biology.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
My eldest daughter would destroy Loveshismom in any argument on these topics, which he shouldn't be arguing anyway, because he knows almost nothing about biological sciences nor evolution.

My girl has two degrees in the biological fields with honors in both, she has been doing cancer research, and I also learn a lot from her on such subjects as well.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LaughingRiddle 3 years ago
LaughingRiddle
LoveshismomSageyTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: The wesbsite pro provided as the basis of his argument simply did not prove anything of the sort. It was filled with biblical references used as explanations.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
LoveshismomSageyTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm disinclined to vote for either side in this debate for any number of reasons, but as I hate to simply leave that as my vote, I will attempt to explain the decision I've given. The burden in this debate was never explained, and I really don't see either side trying to place that burden on the other, so that becomes my job. I think the burden could go either way, but that it falls mainly on Con, as Pro cannot prove a negative. Con simply fails in his burden. If Pro's argument had been that nothing God is purported to have done is in conflict with scientific fact, Con would be winning this debate. But the argument is with regards to god existing, not with the specifics of what that god has done. I don't think either side is effectively arguing this point, but since the burden as I see it is on Con, the onus goes to him. I'm also going to deduct a point for spelling and grammar, mainly because of all of the random caps. I am going to give him sources, though I am against this usage.
Vote Placed by tkubok 3 years ago
tkubok
LoveshismomSageyTied
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: This debate was utterly lacking. You do not get to post a link as an argument, you must actually discuss it. Links should be used as sources for your argument, and not as a refference for the argument themselves. However, as Pro has claimed that God can violate the laws of science, Then Gods existence must necessarily violate science as we know and understand it today. The whole point of the stance of christians is that God Does violate science, because he is not of this universe. But that effectively demonstrates that Pro is wrong.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
LoveshismomSageyTied
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: Very disappointing debate and as such I will not be choosing a winner. Pro is clearly misinterpreting and misunderstanding the science. On the other hand Con should have made more of an effort to present an argument than rely on youtube videos created by others. No points in this debate.
Vote Placed by BananaPhilosopher 3 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
LoveshismomSageyTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's first proposition presents the formal fallacy of infinite regress (something requiring a creator, god being that creator, while also being something and therefore requiring a creator). It also presents, quite simply, a physical impossibility as proof. Immovable force meets unstoppable object. Matter can't be created, so god had to create matter. Apparently that logic only applies to everything but god. Not going to accept that. That being said, you failed in proving existence "REQUIRES" god to exist. Con responded to proposition 1 fairly reasonably. Proposition two is completely without merit (Biology and Philosophy 19: 739?764, 2004. The argument from biogenesis: sis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life -R.C. CARRIER) Con Responded to proposition 2 reasonably. After this point, I thought the debate took a violent turn for the unprofessional. Using videos for your entire argument isn't going to win you any sympathizers. Aside from that, formal fallacies everywhe
Vote Placed by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
LoveshismomSageyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro did a better job at rebutting the points brought up by Con.
Vote Placed by bman77 3 years ago
bman77
LoveshismomSageyTied
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: This really wasn't the best debate I have ever seen on this topic. I think that pro did a good job showing how science cannot disprove god, but con did not do anything to show how it can. Also, con is guilty of a few ad hominems, which should never be used in a civil debate.
Vote Placed by Thoughtispower 3 years ago
Thoughtispower
LoveshismomSageyTied
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: Pro's arguments were hypocritical, and proceeded to ignore his own faults on the law of conservation of energy, but if he strongly supports this, then God could not have just created himself one day. Con as well provided more resources so I give that point. Conduct was both held at a respectable level, and spelling and grammar seemed accurate. Plus Con's arguments had evidence to the debate.
Vote Placed by Demonsthenes 3 years ago
Demonsthenes
LoveshismomSageyTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con backed up his sources better and made a more convincing overall argument.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
LoveshismomSageyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate question was God's Existence Does not Entirely Violate Science. As such Pro contented that God being outside of our time-space universe is not bounded by our laws and thus could have been the creator of our universe. Con countered with an alternate theory of a 4D black hole or holes creating our 3D universe. While an interesting theory, it does not address the debate topic. God's existence does not violate science. Con's video was insulting and unrequited.