The Existence of God
Debate Rounds (3)
I would like to begin by defining the word "God." According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "God" is "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe." For the sake of this argument, I will assume that the god referenced is the Christian God.
Contention 1: The belief that God created the universe is the best explanation for its existence.
The String and Big Bang Theories, while providing a good explanation as to how the universe grew to its tremendous size, do not explain precisely where the particle that started it all came from. In other words, these theories are saying that something came from nothing, which is unfathomable. It makes no sense.
Some say that the universe is eternal, that it has no beginning or end, but this theory is unreasonable. To say that there was no beginning would be to say that the past is infinite, but with no evidence of infinity existing in nature, this argument is invalid.
Contention 2: The existence of God is the best explanation for the intricate order and regularity of the workings of the universe.
The universe displays an overwhelming amount of intelligibility. Each organ in the human body performs a task separate from the one next to it, but somehow they work perfectly together to sustain life. Even the inner workings of something as small as a single cell are so organized and complex that it"s hard to think that it wasn't purposefully designed. Something as delicate as life has such specific requirements in order to be maintained that it would only make sense that the order possessed by the universe is a product of intelligent design. Anything designed needs a designer, which in this instance would be God.
Some may argue that it is by chance, not intelligent design, that the order of the universe is so overwhelmingly intricate and complex. However, "chance" being defined as "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause," would require some sort of background and expectation in order for the outcome to be unknown or predictable. For example, a man takes the train to work every morning, and it is by chance that he meets a woman who also decided to take the train to work that morning. In this scenario, the man only expected to commute to work. It was unknown and not previously predicted that he would also meet this woman. In the case of the universe, thinking of chance as the ultimate source would be to say that order originated from chance, which is impossible. The example previously given shows that there has to be an existing scenario in order for a chance event to occur. Therefore, order must come before chance. In other words, order must be previously created before it can function in a specific way by chance.
My final contention is that there is no evidence that atheism is true.
Atheists have been working to disprove God"s existence for as long as theists have been working to prove it. With no convincing argument that God does not exist, where is the proof that atheism is true?
Also another argument is that why would a God create the universe and then wait billions of years until he creates life on Earth?
Argument against Contention 2: If the Universe was created perfectly, then we would have no natural disasters on earth such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornado's. As well as the many other potential fatalities we will
have to worry about in the future, such as when our sun dies.
Life is obviously imperfect as well. If life were intelligently created how can someone be born with autism or any number of birth defects?
The theory of a divine creator only raises more questions. You are correct in saying it's impossible to disprove the existence of God. But it is equally impossible as disproving the flying teapot, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, etc.
To answer your question, in interpreting the Bible, not everything is meant to be taken literally. Who is to say that God didn"t simply create the universe to let things take their natural course? This can be put hand in hand with the theory of evolution: believing in God does not necessarily mean denying the theory of natural selection. In this case, God would be responsible for simply the creation of the universe, laying the foundation that the universe was built on, not the time frame in which things evolved and grew into what He planned.
In response to your argument against my second contention, I do not think you realize the point I am trying to make. Yes, there are natural disasters and birth defects that are explained by science. While those are unfortunate circumstances, think of processes such as cellular respiration and the nervous system that we as humans would not exist in the same way without. They are so detailed and intricate, it is hard to believe that this was not the working of a higher being.
And finally, I did not once in my argument try to prove the existence of any of those characters, as they are fictional and widely believed as such. While it is normal that a small child would believe in Santa Claus, for example, it is for the sake of tradition and not to be taken as a literal belief. Therefore, your rebuttal to this contention is invalid.
https://medium.com..., also Laurence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing" will also explain my claims that a universe can come from nothing. Also if that isn't enough, one of the greatest scientific minds in all of history, Steven Hawking, says "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist".
"Also, you say it is not right to assume there is a God with no proof; how then is it right to assume the contrary if there is no proof?" Well the answer simply lies in your question. We can never completely disprove the existence of god. But we can still make the assumption that there is no god because the basis for this assumption is the lack of evidence there is to support gods existence. Would it be reasonable to believe me if I said that I met Abraham Lincoln's ghost last night? Although you cannot disprove me, it wouldn't be reasonable to believe me.
You say that everything in the bible isn't meant to be taken literal, but the Catholic Church doesn't make it very clear as to what should be taken literal or what shouldn't be. For example: The Catechism says that "any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six day, twenty-four hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God."I have realized through all my catholic school career, all my different religion teachers would teach either Adam and Eve were literal or figurative. The problem with literally believing in Adam and Eve is that Evolution completely disproves it. The problem with figuratively believing in Adam and Eve is that it raises the question, where does mortal sin come from? The Bible claims that God created the world in seven days right? Well since it definitely cannot be taken literal, then there must be some deeper meaning behind it. What is that meaning?
You say that life is so intricate and detailed that it has to be the work of a higher being? Well why would a designer add useless body parts to the human body such as the appendix, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, etc. These vestiges of anatomy were pointed out by Charles Darwin as evidence of evolution. Although you may not be able to understand how this wasn't designed, there are many more qualified people that do understand it.
And finally, you did not understand what I meant when I brought up Santa Claus and the flying teapot and the Easter bunny. I probably could have used better examples. I was just using examples of other mystical characters to explain how you can never really disprove the existence of anything. If I told you that I have invisible fairies in my backyard, you would obviously think I was either lying or delusional. But there is no way you can fully disprove my claim right? So I apologize if my rebuttal wasn't clear enough for you, but it absolutely isn't invalid.
kmr9207 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.