The Instigator
theOmniscient
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tkubok
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science proves God's existance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 52662
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

theOmniscient

Pro

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein

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.
tkubok

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

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.

Sources:
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
theOmniscient

Pro

"Proof is not always a burden for some people"
-me

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.

sources:
http://www.apologeticspress.org...
(i also used https://www.truthinscience.org..., but they refused to accept that photosynthesis requires plant life.)
tkubok

Con

"Proof is a burden for those who cannot meet it" -Me

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.

Sources:
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
theOmniscient

Pro

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.
tkubok

Con

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.


"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."

Certainly. No one is suggesting that just because something is popular, it is right. Which is why we do not rely on popular opinion in science. Instead, we rely on evidence.

And, again, you have yet to provide any evidence that a God exists.


"
My opponent may think that, because I am a christian, I do not question my teachings recieved in church. But I doquestion them, every second of every day. I open myself to new ideas, and that is what makes me strong."


I have never thought this about my opponent. However, opening yourself to new ideas, is different from accepting those ideas as true or accurate. This is especially true in science.

Science requires evidence in order for a new idea to be accepted. You can open your mind to new ideas all you want, but until you provide actual evidence, it is not accepted as Science.


"Some have limited yourself to the theory of evolution without sufficient evidence to say it is truth, and that makes them weak."


And if the topic of your debate was "There is insufficient evidence to accept evolution as science", then maybe you would have a point.

However, again, the topic is "Science proves God's Existence". Even if evolution was false, and had no evidence, this would not be scientific evidence that a God exists.


"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?"

This is a logical fallacy called argument from Ignorance(2).


"Instead of simply denying everything, think about all this with an open mind."

My mind is open. So where is the scientific Evidence that God exists? You only have one more round left.

Source:
1. http://creation.com...
2. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Debate Round No. 3
theOmniscient

Pro

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.

Good night.


*op·po·nent

əG2;p!3;nənt/


noun




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.
tkubok

Con

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.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RonLayton 3 years ago
RonLayton
The only thing that science proves is that it is frequently wrong and always incomplete.

Most scientific arguments "assume creation" and move directly to evolution. Frequently, arguments about God are not about creation but evolution versus the book of Genesis. Science has nothing to say on the subject of creation because it is not understood.

The single question that defeats science is "How did it all start?" The answer offered is "No one knows!"

Dr Stephen Hawkin says time started at "big bang".

As a practising Christian, I believe that God created everything. I have no idea how nor how long it took. It is my act of faith.

Non believers, believe that God didn't do it either, but they have no idea who or what did it. This is their act of faith.

Faith is personal. It has nothing to do with intelligence or knowledge otherwise the academic and scientific communities would be in complete agreement.

At the moment cosmologists have serious holes in their understanding of the universe. Subjects for which they have no answers include;
What is "dark matter"?
Is the universe infinite?

Scientists, like the rest of us, do not understand "creation".
Their knowledge is limited to studying what happened after the "big bang" (i.e. after creation)
That is to what can be seen. In this sense, see includes using instruments such as telescopes and microscopes.

It seems to me that this argument is based on an understanding of time. Genesis 6 days v billions of years.
Time can be distorted by gravity. This has been proved by scientific experiment. But, "How does gravity "distort time"? Particularly at big bang when all matter and gravity was contained in a single small space.

I am not taking a side here but it seems to me that both have a problem with time.

I finish where I started science cannot prove or disprove God because it is incomplete and is unable to deal with the issue of creation.

Believing in God is an act of faith.

So also, is NO
Posted by tkubok 3 years ago
tkubok
No, its not.

First off, again, even if evolution is right, it could still be the same as "We were created by God through evolution, you moron". Thats what you seem to be missing.

Are you saying it is impossible for God to create us through evolution? Is God not powerful enough to create us through evolution?

Secondly, again, the fact that one explanation is wrong, does not mean that the other explanation is correct. What you did, is called a False dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy.

Its not "Either evolution is true or Creationism is true". They can both be wrong, and a third undiscovered explanation could be true.

Thirdly, you never asked for evidence for evolution, to which there is a ton. And all your arguments that you used, with which you tried to disprove evolution, failed, as I clearly demonstrated in my responses.
Posted by theOmniscient 3 years ago
theOmniscient
Listen, proving Evolution wrong is just the same as saying "we were created, you moron". there is no evidence that we evolved from monkeys, or slugs, or fish. I have not said anything about faeries, but you, on the other hand, have proven that you believe in the lack of a God that you refuse to bring any evidence fourth yourself. A typical human being is all you are: a hypocrite. Besides, stories about pixies and faeries began with a drunk looking at a firefly and seeing a face. God's existance is the only way to explain why anything happens; nothing in the universe should be able to stay together the way it does, including gravity.
Posted by tkubok 3 years ago
tkubok
Its not atheist theories, since there are christians who accept evolution and the big bang. None of this is relevan to whether a God exists, because you can believe that God created us through evolution, you can believe that God created us through the big bang.

But even so, disproving one claim, is not evidence for another.

It would be as absurd as claiming that there is scientific evidence for the existance of faeries, and then proceeding to disprove evolution.

Thats not how science works. In science, you have to provide evidence for your own claims. Disproving another claim has no relevance to this.
Posted by theOmniscient 3 years ago
theOmniscient
I have torn down two of the most commonly used atheist theories in order to bring some light. why god has to exist is as simple as this: We, the human race, know how things work, but not why they work. If god didn't exist, nothing could. Einstein discovered this long ago, i am simply relaying the message to you.
Posted by tkubok 3 years ago
tkubok
Only one round left, and still no scientific evidence for the existance of God. Do you understand how this debate works?
Posted by tkubok 3 years ago
tkubok
But you do realize that if youre making a claim that science proves Gods existance, you have to offer up scientific evidence that demonstrates Gods existance, and not simply disprove contrary theories, right?

I mean, disproving the Big Bang theory is not the same as providing scientific evidence that God exists.
Posted by theOmniscient 3 years ago
theOmniscient
Well, I made the debate, so I have to know the topic. I have made references to different problems with the way the atheist scientist views everything. Evolution cancels itself out; Life cannot be randomly formed, no matter how much "experienced scientists" claims it can. And the Big Bang also cancels itself; the universe is so huge, you cannot limit it to a beginning and end. You could call it God, or the World, or the Universe, or All, but there has to have been something to organize all this.

(this is something I'm using for the debate, not just a comment)
Posted by tkubok 3 years ago
tkubok
Are you sure you understand what the topic of the debate, is?
No votes have been placed for this debate.