The Instigator
baungaardm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Science vs. God. Who created us?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 856 times Debate No: 70168
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

baungaardm

Pro

I want to start an open debate, about wether the formation of life, is dependent on religion (God) or science (facts). What I mean is, was it a man in the sky, who created the world we live in, created all the miracles that we have, or was it science that has created this for us. I am for science, and believe that God and religion has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe.
1Credo

Con

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof in this debate will be shared. My opponent has taken the position that "God and religion has nothing to do with the creation of the universe". As it stands, this is an unwarranted assertion. If my opponent wants to win the debate, he must put forward arguments and evidence in attempt to justify his position. I will be taking the position that God created the universe.

The Relationship Between God and Science

I'd like to make my position on God and science clear before delving into my argument. My view is that God created the universe through the event known as the Big Bang.

Argument for God

I will present William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. In order to reject the conclusion, my opponent must show at least one of the argument's premises to be false. If my opponent fails to do this, the argument remains sound.

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

Now, what sorts of candidates are there for the cause of the universe? It seems to me that there are only two (I invite my opponent to propose an alternative candidate if he disagrees): an abstract object (a number or a shape) or an unembodied mind (God). But abstract objects don't stand in causal relations; the number 3 can't cause anything. So, we are left with the conclusion that God is the only viable candidate for the cause of our universe.

Summary

I have presented an argument which, if sound, shows that God is the cause of our universe. My opponent has yet to provide any arguments in favor of his assertion that "God and religion has nothing to do with the creation of the universe". As such, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that God created our universe.

Thank you.

Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 1
baungaardm

Pro

baungaardm forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
baungaardm

Pro

baungaardm forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

I have nothing further to add, as my opponent has forfeited in the final round.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by flewk 2 years ago
flewk
Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing.

You should never assume a deterministic system. Causality is uncontroversial in daily life. It is controversial regarding theoretical physics and certain interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Religious faith is about belief, is not trust or hope, look up the meanings.
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, gives two distinct meanings for faith: 1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."A scientist requires massive amounts of evidence for their claim, a religion does not. A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.
Faith isn't really any kind of standard that can be tested for reliability. Even if religious theists don't intend it in this manner, it seems that in practice "faith" is simply pulled out whenever attempted arguments based on reason and evidence fail. Claims about faith can be used to justify and defend absolutely anything on an equal " and equally unreasonable " basis. This means that faith ultimately justifies and defends absolutely nothing because after we're done with all the faith claims, we're left precisely where we were when we started: faced with a set of religions that all appear to be about equally plausible or implausible. Since our position has not changed, faith obviously added nothing to our deliberations. If faith added nothing, then it has no value when it comes to evaluating whether a religion is likely true or not.
All of your arguments require faith in a god, that's why they fail, all I need to do is not believe. With science it is true whether you believe or not. Science is our first best source for knowledge. Christian and the religious have no intention of assessing their ideas against a systematic set of criteria designed to eliminate personal biases.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@missmedic

You seem to be misguided on the definition of "faith". Faith is trust, which is perfectly consistent with rationality. If we take faith further to mean belief in God, then it seems to me that nothing could be more consistent with rationality. Atheism, the belief that there is no God, is the least rationally justifiable position I can imagine. Perhaps your atheism is satisfying or reassuring to you, but then again, we'd better be careful not to "persist in delusion" and ignore the evidence before us.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Science has done far more to both explain the world around us and help us improve our condition than millennia of religion. Religion tries to make faith a positive attribute. From the objective perspective, rationality is a virtue because it permits me to ground my thinking on reality, which is more conductive to the pursuit of my goals than fantasy. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
You're misunderstanding atheists. It's not a magical genie in the sky that we object to. For many of us, it's belief in anything that cannot be scientifically verified that we do not accept as legitimate or intellectually honest.
Posted by Olkuter 2 years ago
Olkuter
I'm not surprised that atheism is so damn popular considering the misconception on the concept of God. If God was a so called "man in the sky" then atheists have full right to not believe in God and theists if they believe this way have full right to be criticized. God isn't some invisible friend or invisible being. The concept of God is so beyond our way of thought that he can never be proven by science. Science relies on being able to measure something when you can't measure God. Science can't answer everything because there are things other than the concept of God that we can't measure. We can hypothesize about him, but can never prove him. Our only way of trying to understand this concept is by means of philosophy which is vastly different from science. Science despite what some believe is not a philosophy or a substitute for philosophy. The two are different. In order to understand the concept of God better philosophy can be used, but like science cannot prove God, but only better understand Him. I'm not saying He does exist, but I'm saying that the definition of whom God is by most theists and atheists is so poor that it is no wonder why atheism is on the rise, because it is rational to not believe in an "invisible friend", but it is also rational to use philosophy.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Any intellectual honest person would say "I don't know" The religious would say otherwise.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I didn't know Science was a person.
Posted by Russia_The_almighty 2 years ago
Russia_The_almighty
Today in Russia we believe there is a god!
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
It'd be nice to have both. We just have to confirm that.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
baungaardm1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
baungaardm1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by TommyB12 2 years ago
TommyB12
baungaardm1CredoTied
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: Forfeit- Kalam can be easily dispelled with as an argument but unfortunately pro forfeited. Perhaps pro has no idea how to respond. I would be happy to take this debate and engage with it with a 48 or 72 hour response window due to my work and business schedule
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
baungaardm1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times so conduct to Con. Pro never made any arguments, nor had any sources, so both go to Con.