The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Science proves that god does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,177 times Debate No: 34875
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)





Topic: Science proves that god does not exist.
Position: Pro/For
Category: Science
Rounds: 4
Voting Period: 2 Weeks
Time to Argue: 48 hours
Argument Max: 8,000 Characters
Vote Comments: Yes

I am taking the Pro position. It is my burden to prove that science demonstrates the non-existence of god. It is the burden of Con to prove that my argument is incorrect. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.

There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals.

The voting period will be two weeks.

Each side will have fourty-eight hours to post each round. The maximum number of characters is eight thousand.

Using pictures in order to demonstrate concepts is allowed. General expectations of conduct should be followed. I will be taking my argument from a debate I instigated with a different account. Please do not accuse me of plagiarism. It is my own work.

The most relevant definition of a word should be used when definitions are in dispute.

God is defined as the personal being which causes the initial state of the universe.

Note: I have modified this debate to satisfy RT. If anyone else accepts, it results in them forfeiting.



I apologize for accepting. I suppose I forfeit, then. :(
Debate Round No. 1



I have no interest in winning debates. I'm interested in having a good conversation and learning something. So, I'll just post my argument and allow the debate to continue as normal. I think it would be fair if Con lost a conduct point rather than all seven points.

God is defined as the cause of the initial state. If there was in fact no initial state or singularity, then god cannot exist, because an attribute of god cannot be actualized. This will be called the 'No Initial State' argument, and the premises go like this.

1: Cosmology demonstrates that there is no cosmological singularity.
2: An attribute of god is that god caused the cosmological singularity.
3: From one and two, god has an attribute that is impossible.
4: Cosmology demonstrates that god does not exist.

[Support for P1]

The theory of relativity is one of the most proven theories in all of science. There are many proofs of general relativity, some complex and some simple, so I will show that relativity is true using one of the simpler arguments. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton's equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true.

So, what implications does the theory of relativity have on the first premise? Well, there are equations derived from the theory of relativity called the 'Freedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker' metric. This metric describes a universe that is homogeneous, isotrophic, and expanding universe. The models of the universe that are based on this metric have no initial state. [2] There is not some state X that god can cause. Because general relativity is true, FLRW metrics are true, and therefore there is no initial state.

The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem posits a singularity that the universe came from. However, Hawking and Penrose have withdrawn this theorem a long time ago. Why? They realized that, once you take quantum mechanics into account, there is no need for a singularity. Hawking has this to say in his book A Brief History of Time. [2]

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe--as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.” [3]

Quetin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics at Western Michigan university, talks about the impossibility of a singularity.

"The cosmic singularity is a hypothetical time t=0 at which all the laws of nature, space and time break down. It is hypothetical or merely imaginary because if it did exist, it would be a physically impossible state, due to the breakdown of all laws, even the laws required for time to exist. This breakdown at the hypothetical t=0 implies there is no first instant t=0 of the finitely old time-series and that each instant is preceded by earlier instants." [4]

Cosmology supports the idea that there was no initial state or a singularity.

[Support for P2]

The truth of P2 is contained in the definition of god that Con agreed to in round one.

[Support for P3]

This follows logically from P1 and P2.


Cosmology demonstrates that there was no initial state. If there is no initial state, then god does not exist. Therefore, science demonstrates the non-existence of god.

1: Krauss, Lawrence M., Dr. "A Cosmic Mystery: Beginnings." A Universe From Nothing. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 3. Print.



I can't begin to express my apologies for what I'm about to say. I am overwhelmed right now. I really should not have accepted this debate. If you'd like to reschedule this with me or challenge someone else, that's fine. However, I have a tendency to not plan ahead and it's screwing me over right now. I do not have the schedule capacity to debate this.

I was going to argue through Chaos Theory, so if you plan on arguing this with me some other time, perhaps researching that and predicting how I'd argue with Chaos Theory and figuring out how you'd rebut it would make the future argument proceed for smoothly.

Again, I apologize, I would hate it if someone did this to me. When I make a debate and someone accepts, I expect a fulfillin debate, so I know how terrible this must be for you. But again, I don't really have a choice. I may have to forfeit a couple of my other debates as well. So sorry.
Debate Round No. 2



It seems that Con is going to forfeit the debate due to time constraints. I completely understand the real world concerns that he has to address. DDO is just a website, and it's more important to focus on your actual life. I wish Con luck on whatever it is he has to do.



Here's something you all can enjoy instead of a debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Ave and Vale.


TheDarkMuffin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Cool, I just sent you my reasons why I do not accept Smith's argument.
Posted by JonathanCrane 3 years ago
Send me a friend request. If you do that, then you should be able to message me as well.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Your PM box is blocked("JonathanCrane is not accepting messages at this time"). Nobody can PM you. Change that, and I will discuss Smith's argument with you.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Never mind. Somebody already accepted :(
Posted by JonathanCrane 3 years ago
Someone else has already taken it. Can you PM me your rebuttals, though? I'm interested in talking about them.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago

"I am taking the Pro position. It is my burden to prove that science demonstrates the non-existence of god. It is the burden of Con to prove that my argument is incorrect."


"I am taking the Pro position. It is my burden to prove that science demonstrates the non-existence of god. It is the burden of Con to prove that my argument does not affirm the resolution."

Then it is on like Donkey Kong! I have some great rebuttals to the argument you are going to present.
Posted by JonathanCrane 3 years ago
There you go, RT.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Ya, if he put the BoP on just himself, he would have a better chance of someone accepting this debate.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
Con has no BOP. You're making the assumption, you have the sole BOP.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
If you make the burden of proof so I don't have to show God exists, then I would definitely accept this. Basically, if you make it so you have to prove your case, and all I have to do is undermine it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Too bad, this could have been an interesting one. I hope a theist well versed in cosmology takes him up on this.