Science proves that god does not exist.
Debate Rounds (4)
Topic: Science proves that god does not exist.
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. :(
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.  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. 
“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.” 
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." 
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.
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.
Ave and Vale.
TheDarkMuffin forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.