The Instigator
SkeletalAssociate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

There is no God

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 2 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 235 times Debate No: 82960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

SkeletalAssociate

Pro

Alrighty then, just gonna start off by saying there is no proof of a God besides a well written fairy tale about a nice guy with magical powers who died.
daley

Con

If there is no God, then our entire universe is just a happy accident, ad we ourselves are just accidental byproducts of socio-biological evolution. But here are a few of the reasons why this is unlikely to be the case.

(1) Math is a Product of Intelligent Minds
In the movie "Contact," astronomers were able to look for intelligent life just by looking for things such as a sequence of prime numbers within a signal. Now, why would such a signal prove intelligent beings sent it? Why could it not be a product of natural forces or blind chance? It seems very unlikely to have meaningful information, and a consistent pattern which is independent of (not obviously caused by) the laws of nature. Something just as simple as a list of prime numbers is easy for us to see as the product of an intelligent mind. Yet, there is far more complex mathematics in nature all around us which shows that a vastly more intelligent being than we ourselves must have designed this universe upon a mathematical structure. Take for example the Fibonacci Sequence which begins with either 0, 1 or 1, 1, and each number following this is always the sum of the previous two numbers, so that you'll get 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55...This exact sequence is found in the design of living things such as the branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple, the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern, the arrangement of a pine cone, and the family tree of honeybees. (Douady, S; Couder, Y (1996), "Phyllotaxis as a Dynamical Self Organizing Process" (PDF), Journal of Theoretical Biology 178 (178): 255"74; Jones Judy; Wilson, William (2006), "Science", An Incomplete Education, Ballantine Books, p. 544, Brousseau, A (1969), "Fibonacci Statistics in Conifers", Fibonacci Quarterly (7): 525"32; "Marks for the da Vinci Code: B"". Maths. Computer Science For Fun: CS4FN) The applicability of mathematics of the physical world makes no sense if there is no God. Why would there be this happy coincidence that after the Big Bang, everything sort of just fell into place upon a mathematical structure? I don't have enough faith to believe this mathematical equation https://upload.wikimedia.org... which the florets in the head of a sunflower are programmed to follow as they grow was made by blind, purposely, unguided chance. It seems more logical to me that just as a building is built according to its blue-print, that the universe and the life in it was created upon a mathematical structure because God designed it that way. I ask my opponent, why is nature written in the language of math? Is not math a product of a mind?

(2) The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
Life in this universe depends upon a complex balance of forces, so finely tuned that if we change any of them by even a hair's breadth, life would not exist, we would not be here. If, for example, the expansion rate of the universe one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. There would be no planets, no life. (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 123) The odds of getting favorable conditions for later star formation which leads to the existence of planets is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes. (P. C. W. Davies, Other Worlds (London: Dent, 1980), pp. 160-161, 168-169) If you change the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 to the 100th power, no life would exist in the universe. Not just carbon based life like ours, but also silicon based life, any physical kind of life we can imagine. (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) I could go on to list more than 40 more examples of other constants that must be finely tuned to permit life; and not only must these forces be fine-tuned, but their ratios to one another must also be finely tune for the universe to be life sustaining.

There is no known natural law of physics that would cause these forces to be turned the way they are. They didn't have to be this way. So how could the mindless forces of nature get them all right in a single go at the Big Bang? The chances of that happening is simply too small to logically conclude that's what happened. Physicist Paul Davies was once an agnostic, but this evidence is so powerful, that after a lifetime of discovering more and more about how this universe seemed set up just so we could be here, he commented: "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact." (Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster: 1992), p. 16) Notice he didn't come to this position by faith, or by reading the Bible, but through examining scientific evidence. Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science. (Robert Jastrow, "The Astronomer and God," in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), p. 22) Fred Hoyle declares: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." (Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science (November, 1981), p. 12)

The fine tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design. There is no evidence of any law of physics that would make it physically necessary for the forces in nature to be tuned to these specific quantities. They could have been anywhere on the dial. Secondly, the odds of them all falling into such precise locations by chance is simply too small to face. The only option left is design. The universe was designed by someone.

(3) What God Must be Like
My two arguments above demonstrate that some being created the universe. Since the universe is by definition all of nature (if you look up the word "nature," the dictionary will basically tell you nature is the whole universe, all the things in it and how they naturally function), then any being that creates the universe is outside of nature, thus, is supernatural. If He created all of matter, then he cannot be physical. To combat this point Pro would have to demonstrate there is matter outside of our universe, which he cannot do. Imagine the amount of power it would take to create the entire universe with all its suns and stars? I don't how much that is, but you're going to have to imagine something very close to what the Bible calls "God."

(4) The Resurrection of Jesus
There are four facts that are agreed upon by the vast majority of historians concerning Jesus Christ:

1) Jesus" burial in a tomb by Joseph of Aramathea. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin which Jewish Christians despised and vice versa, its unlikely that the church would invent a story of a Sanhedrin member who does what is right by Jesus.

2) The discovery of his empty tomb by a group of His women followers. The testimony of women was not considered reliable in first century Palestine, so no one would make up a story with women as the first witnesses if they wanted others to believe it.

3) His post-mortem appearances. Historians generally agree that individuals and groups of people had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion.

4) The origin of the disciples" belief in his resurrection. These disciples became willing to proclaim this message in the face of stiff opposition despite having every reason not too.

In the absence of any plausible, naturalistic explanation of these facts, I'm justified in concluding that God raised Jesus from the dead. But that entails that God exists.
Debate Round No. 1
SkeletalAssociate

Pro

SkeletalAssociate forfeited this round.
daley

Con

Con says that I ignore all the parts of nature that have no mathematical formula whatsoever, but showing that some things don't following a mathematical pattern doesn't show the ones which do to be pure coincidence. If you saw the words "I love you" written in the sand by the sea shore, you won't say, "well, look at all the sea shores on earth where no meaningful words appear whatsoever, so this one must be an accident caused by the waves." It still cries out for an answer, and the Fibonacci sequence is just one of the many others found in nature that cry out for an explanation of how they came to be.

If I throw a rock at a wall and it gets parts of it broken off, lets say a scientists creates a mathematical formula to describe the new shape of this rock. It's shape is a pure accident in the sense that I didn't plan out how it would break. Now, you would not expect that formula to accurately describe all other rocks on the planet, would you? It wouldn't even describe a single other rock, because chances are, no other rock is shaped exactly like this one. Yet, e=mc squared describes all the matter everywhere in the universe. Why? Why does all matter follow the same equation if it only came about by accident? The only rational answer is that someone made it this way, deliberately.

Con has not replied to the reason I gave for accepting each of these four facts about Jesus as being historical. They are good enough to convince most historians in the world, why does he object to them?

The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance, necessity, or design. Con has not shown my argument that design is the only viable option to be false.
Debate Round No. 2
SkeletalAssociate

Pro

SkeletalAssociate forfeited this round.
daley

Con

Guess I won....???
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by daley 1 year ago
daley
Ok. I'll post my arguments first
Posted by SkeletalAssociate 1 year ago
SkeletalAssociate
Whatever you want to do daley! I'd like it if you started but it's your choice!
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
yes
Posted by daley 1 year ago
daley
Or should I place my arguments in round 1?
Posted by daley 1 year ago
daley
Is the opening round for acceptance only?
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I would accept this debate and run KCA, but I don't have the time. But if you can't find someone to debate you that actually provides a challenge, send me a challenge next Monday.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
If you read it in the original Greek the whole New Testament is actually very beautifully written, and it makes more sense than the English translations.
Posted by SkeletalAssociate 1 year ago
SkeletalAssociate
Depends on your opinion of writing. I personally think its an interesting story worth reading if you don't mind a whole lot of rules and annoying stuff like that.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Well written?
The bronze-age-Mesopotamians did not write anything well.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tstor 11 months ago
tstor
SkeletalAssociatedaleyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 12 months ago
dsjpk5
SkeletalAssociatedaleyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.