Science proves God's existance
Evolution, the Big Bang, and other theories are clearly disproven by themselves. For anything like these to originate, it would require a power that we humans cannot comprehend. Evolution claims that every creature on the planet evolved from a similar ancestor, but where could it have started? The dirt, perhaps? How could you create life from an inanimate object without a being such as God? The simple answer: you can't; it's been attempted, and it failed. And the Big Bang claims that the universe came from an unfathomably dense particle of matter exploding with enough force to expand to the universe as it is now! This is bull crap, and anything that dense would only create a Black Hole.
If my challenger is voted as winner, then i am forced to believe that there is no hope for the human race.
My position in this debate shall be that there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Science proves God's existence. The burden of proof shall rest on my opponent, to demonstrate that there is indeed enough evidence to demonstrate that science proves the existence of God.
First off, some definitions.
Science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."(1)
Since my opponent is a christian, I will assume that he is talking about the Christian God, and the attributes commonly applied to such a God, including Omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.
Now, onto my opponents initial claims.
"Evolution, the Big Bang, and other theories are clearly disproven by themselves. For anything like these to originate, it would require a power that we humans cannot comprehend. "
I would like to ask my opponent, how he knows this. Since we are talking about science, he must provide evidence that demonstrates that Evolution and the Big Bang theory are wrong or disproven.
"How could you create life from an inanimate object without a being such as God? The simple answer: you can't; it's been attempted, and it failed. "
What specific experiment is my opponent referring to, here?
"And the Big Bang claims that the universe came from an unfathomably dense particle of matter exploding with enough force to expand to the universe as it is now!"
The Big bang did not explode with force. It was a rapid expansion of space/time.(2) My opponent should read up on what the theory actually states, instead of relying on his misconceptions.
"This is bull crap, and anything that dense would only create a Black Hole."
My opponent is correct. It would have created a black hole.... If only space/time had existed, and was not expanding rapidly.
I eagerly await my opponents response, for I would like to disprove Evolution and the Big bang theory and win a nobel prize.
Allow me to begin with the name of the scientist who tried to create life. Stanley L. Miller was a scientist who was so die-hard for the evolution theory that he and one of his partners attempted to prove creationism wrong with an experiment that could never work. Today we call this the Miller-Urey experiment. It consisted of glass flasks to simulate an "early earth" atmosphere. and passed an electrical charge through a substance containing water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. No oxygen was necessary, because it would have oxidized into amino acids. At the bottom of the device was a trap to capture any particles produced by the apparatus, and prevent the new particles from being destroyed by a second discharge. What came out of the experiment was mostly tar with some carbolic acids, glycene, and alanine. No cells were made in any of the attempts, it just can't be done.
And as for space/time and the Big Bang: space/time would need to exist for matter or energy to exist/change.
That is all for now.
(i also used https://www.truthinscience.org..., but they refused to accept that photosynthesis requires plant life.)
Allow me to address my opponents arguments, and then I shall make some arguments of my own, regarding the current status of this debate.
"Allow me to begin with the name of the scientist who tried to create life. Stanley L. Miller was a scientist who was so die-hard for the evolution theory that he and one of his partners attempted to prove creationism wrong with an experiment that could never work. Today we call this the Miller-Urey experiment."
My opponent has made numerous errors.
1). Abiogenesis,(1) the origin of life, has nothing to do with Evolution,(2) the beginning of life. As to why two people who are so die-hard for the theory of evolution to be spending their time recreating an event that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution is puzzling.
2). The experiment was not trying to create life, but rather, trying to demonstrate the hypothesis of whether the early earths atmospheric conditions favoured synthesizing more complex organic compounds from simpler compounds. This experiment was a success.(3)
"What came out of the experiment was mostly tar with some carbolic acids, glycene, and alanine. No cells were made in any of the attempts, it just can't be done."
I would like to ask my opponent how this demonstrates, scientifically, that God exists.
"And as for space/time and the Big Bang: space/time would need to exist for matter or energy to exist/change."
Space/time would need to exist in order for matter or energy to change, yes. But for matter and energy to exist, no space/time is necessary.
A singularity, for example, is a dense point of matter that does not require space/time to exist, and when it exists within space/time, it effectively creates a hole in space, where the gravitational forces are so high, time stands still to the outside observer.
However, I do not understand what any of this has to do with science demonstrating that a God exists. My opponent has yet to provide any scientific evidence that proves the existance of a God, and instead, has resorted to attacking scientific theories that he believes contradicts his own creation story.
Abiogenesis, Big bang theory, Evolution, all of these things could still be true, and God could still exist. I am still awaiting the scientific evidence that God exists.
When will my opponent provide such evidence? We are already halfway finished with the debate. I suggest my opponent pick up the pace, and provide scientific evidence that demonstrates that a God exists.
Instead of making a reply to your words of stubborn doubt. I am going to tell you something from one of my journals my little brother accidentally burned. you may find it interesting.
Two years ago as I ponder the meaning of life, I decided to just lie down and think about the origins of the universe, from present to past. I sat thinking of the conflicts between evolutionism and creationism, the laws of conservation of matter and energy, the evidence - if any exists - of our species evolving from others. I sat for fifteen hours thinking, calculating, contemplating, not eating or drinking, and suddenly I realized something: If the theory of evolution was real, why are there still chimps and gorrilla's on the planet with us, where could it have begun? If the Big Bang is truth, how did it happen? how could there truly be a "beginning" to the universe? The answer came to me clearly: if we understood infinity our minds' full capacity would be unveiled, and then they'd melt in the process. Our physical forms are incapable of comprehending time; it is impossible to describe with our limited brain capacity.
The moment the thought completed it's cycle, i felt a fire inside my skull, and then I blacked out. I awoke knowing that I knew nothing. And that is the only truth that the human race needs. We are insects trying to comprehend the infinite capacity of forever, and heading in the opposite direction. Our current knowledge is an illusion we have convinced ourselves is the truth. But popular vote cannot change the fact that the whole population of Earth might agree on something being correct, and it could still be wrong. My opponent may think that, because I am a christian, I do not question my teachings recieved in church. But i do question them, every second of every day. I open myself to new ideas, and that is what makes me strong. Some have limited yourself to the theory of evolution without sufficient evidence to say it is truth, and that makes them weak.
To understand Infinity and control it, that is how gods are formed. We are born into forms that cannot understand and accept the full truth. Evolution, according to evolution, needs to begin somehow. Some say space/time did not exist during the Big Bang, but how could something of such magnitude happen without the essence of the universe previously existing as well?
Instead of simply denying everything, think about all this with an open mind.
My opponent has, again, failed to provide any scientific evidence that proves God exists. I shall respond to some of my opponents claims, again, and I would like to remind my opponent that he only has 1 round left in which to provide his evidence.
“and suddenly I realized something: If the theory of evolution was real, why are there still chimps and gorilla's on the planet with us, where could it have begun?
15 hours of thinking, calculating, contemplating, and you couldn't even solve a simple conundrum like this.
The reason why Chimps and Gorillas are still on the planet with us, is because we didn't evolve from them, we share a common ancestor with them. Just like how Americans descended from Europeans, and yet there are still Europeans alive today.
Infact, Answers in Genesis, a Pro-creationist website, has listed this as one of the arguments they believe creationists should not use(1).
In other words, the Creationists are saying "Please don't use this argument, because it makes the rest of us look dumb". 20 seconds on Google is, apparently, superior to your 15 hours of contemplation.
But, again, I fail to see what this has to do with science proving the existence of God.
"The answer came to me clearly: if we understood infinity our minds' full capacity would be unveiled, and then they'd melt in the process. Our physical forms are incapable of comprehending time; it is impossible to describe with our limited brain capacity."
Mathematicians seem to be using and understanding Infinity just fine, and I am not aware of any Mathematician whose brain has melted.
Yet again, this has nothing to do with whether science has proven the existence of God.
“The moment the thought completed it's cycle, I felt a fire inside my skull, and then I blacked out. I awoke knowing that I knew nothing.”
I could not agree more. You clearly know nothing about Evolution, about the Big bang theory, about science, or scientific evidence, which is why you have yet to provide any scientific evidence that God exists. You have so many fundamental misunderstandings about science.
"Instead of simply denying everything, think about all this with an open mind."
Here we are, the final round, and all my opponent has done is look things up in a dictionary and use the Fallacies handbook. I have brought evidence disproving two of the most used atheist theories, and all my opponent* has done is try throwing fallacy number one (that's attack the evidence) at me. Well now it's my turn, and prepare to feel the pain; my older brother and I have been arguing since he was six (I proved with logic to my brother that Santa isn't real, and I was four). Opponent of mine, you have been completely oblivious to this one truth anyone, atheist or religious, knows: to win an argument, you must know where you stand, and then attack relentlessly. In round one, my opponent posted openly "I would like to disprove Evolution and the Big bang theory and win a Nobel prize." so where does my opponent really stand, if so eager to disprove those theories?
Evolution is easily disproven by itself and it's theories of origin; the "primordial sludge" theory can easily be disproven by my only comment so far, which brings forth the evidence that nothing can randomly happen. The "high energy shot into the earth and creating life" theory: I can prove it wrong with far less than a complete sentence - but that docks our points on this website. Pure energy is nothing but destructive, and the only reason Miller was able to produce any results in his experiment was because of his trap for the produced molecules. The "Aliens" theory produced by History Channel: they'd say the same thing about a kid's lunch money being stolen, no evidence whatsoever.
I could disprove evolution with some of the "common ancestor" ideas, too. College professors teaching evolution have said that there was only one species to begin with on Earth, but then they'd either have to eat each other, or be plants and never become animals like us humans. If the first species was a mutated amoeba, comprising of plant and animal attributes, why would a multi-celled organism need to be formed, and how long would it take before they were all eaten and the last survivor starved? Why is the only thing atheist scientists have to say about evolution is that "we don't really know about it, and we may never know" Evolutionism could easily be renamed to a more accurate name, such as "stubbornism" or something else with the same definition (and an -ism).
It appears that all you need to do to be considered "smart" in modern times it closed off your mind and use traced footprints to find the path; my opponent has failed to truly argue with me, all he has done is this(https://www.google.com...)! This hasn't even been a contradictory, and my opponent should at least try to use his vast knowledge of definitions and synonyms to try and prove that he has been arguing.
Thank you all for coming, you've been a wonderful audience.
1.someone who competes against or fights another in a contest, game, or argument; a rival or adversary.
2.a person who disagrees with or resists a proposal or practice.
Again, my opponent fails to realize that disproving one claim, is not evidence that another claim is true.
Throughout this debate, I have asked my opponent what the scientific evidence is, that proves that a God exists.
Instead of providing any evidence, he merely repeated his arguments to demonstrate how Evolution/The Big Bang theory is false, without the slightest understanding that Evolution or the Big bang theory could still be true and God could still exist.
Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, all of this is irrelevant as to whether there is scientific evidence that a God exists, because the truth or falsity of either theory has no relevance to the existence of God. Even if we assumed that Evolution and the Big bang Theory were false, what would be the scientific evidence that God exists?
Sadly, despite my attempts at reasoning with him, my opponent chose to ignore my pleas to have a decent debate.
As my opponent has failed to provide any scientific evidence that a God exists, he has failed his burden of proof.