The Instigator
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
NoahIsRight
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no logical or proveable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/25/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 101370
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

MakeDebatingGreatAgain

Pro

I would like to debate that religion provides no logical or provable stance to the origins of mankind or the universe. I believe that the best explanation comes from science, because it is based on proven facts and sound, logical reasoning. Con will take the side that religion does offer a reasonable explanation to the origins of mankind. Con may choose from any well known religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. As long as the ideas stem form a genuine religion. First round is acceptance only.
NoahIsRight

Con

I would first like to say, that the big bang is no more realistic than my religion, Christianity. For starters, an all powerful god creating everything makes more sense than that matter created itself.

Beyond that, science can't explain how we have time, 3D space, laws of physics, and basically all the other things that define our basis of reality.

Some say the idea of a God existing is ridiculous, saying things like "if god created us, who created god?" Well, he didn't NEED to be created. The laws of science didn't exist. Therefore it would be perfectly logical for something to always exist, and need no beginning or creator.

Now doesn't that make you feel silly saying, non sentient matter just appeared out of nowhere?
Debate Round No. 1
MakeDebatingGreatAgain

Pro

I would like to thank con for accepting this debate, as this will be an interesting debate. However, con gave arguments when I said that first round was acceptance only. I am willing to let this slide, but if my opponent forfeits any rounds in the debate, than I win automatically. Now to my arguments and rebuttals.

My opponent references the big bang theorem as being no more accurate than any religion, and that matter could not have created itself. However, the big bang theorem has some truth and indirect evidence correlating to it. [1] The expansion of the universe from a single point of singularity can be traced to the movement of galaxies at seemingly faster than the speed of light, which shows that time-space is expanding. The cosmic background radiation also helps prove this concept. This evidence may not be truly conclusive, but no real evidence for the existence of a spiritual god governing the existence of the universe has been or will be found. There is no way to prove that god exists, has existed forever, and has no beginning. These are just mindless teachings instructed to us by the corrupt organization known as the church.

I would also like to add that the concept of a god controlling the fate of the universe cannot be proved logically. The natural theology of the existence of god is flawed, as in the belief of a god is a style of life for us as humans, rather than a true and undeniable part of the universe's existence. [2] We believe in a god because we want to relate to a higher power that governs the universe, and that created us. We want to believe that we where created by someone else of a higher power, which is seen as gods being humanized in most religions. This is a natural tendency for some people psychologically, which is why the belief in a god is a style of life. It is not an inherent truth, but rather a figment of humanity. Many examples of this (Anthropomorphism) can be seen not only in Judeo-Christian religions, but in almost all religions. [3] Buddhism is one of the exceptions, where a non human force governs the universe, but this is still subject to the issue of being unable to be proven and how eternal life relates to natural human tendencies and instincts to live forever.

Finally, I would like to say that my opponent's claim that, " Therefore it would be perfectly logical for something to always exist, and need no beginning or creator." is contradicted by, "Now doesn't that make you feel silly saying, non sentient matter just appeared out of nowhere?" Con is stating that god has always existed, and was not created. Con then states that it is logical to believe that something needs no creator, which correlates to his first statement. However, con also states that it is illogical to believe that matter appeared in space without a creator. If god wasn't created, and it is logical to believe that god could exist without creation, than why is it illogical to believe that matter and the universe has existed without a creator, and from "out of nowhere"? This argument is similar to the argument in the comments that was posted, but I did not copy that argument. I have just used a similar argument structured differently, and relating to my opponents arguments.

Sources:


https://en.wikipedia.org... [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]




NoahIsRight

Con

About the first thing... I'm new here and didn't understand what that meant.. Sry

[1] As you said, that argument doesn't really disprove God, but on the subject of galaxies, I'd like to point out that some galaxies are spinning backward. In the big bag, all the matter in the universe was in a dot smaller than the head of a pin, and it was spinning very fast, until one day all that matter flew out and became what we know as the universe. The way physics works, however, is that if something is gripping onto something spinning, and lets go, it will fly outward and spin in the direction the initial object was spinning in. For galaxies to spin different directions, the tiny universe dot would have to spin different directions, which by your understanding of physics, is impossible.

[2] You're assuming that the only reason we believe in God is because we want that feeling of security/someone is looking out for us. If we created God, wouldn't we make him to best fit our desires? Its natural human nature to want to covet, lust, and many other things. However the God condemns these. Its natural to want a sense of order, thus him saying things like "Don't murder" but something like Lust, which can do harm, but none physical just wouldn't make sense.

[3] I don't believe in buddhism, rip on it all you want.

When I was saying it doesn't need to be created, I was referring to God. God created logic and scientific laws, he doesn't need to abide by them. Hes an all powerful God. Non sentient matter is far from an all powerful God. It DOES need a creator. I look forward to your counter argument! :)
Debate Round No. 2
MakeDebatingGreatAgain

Pro

The first point my opponent gave was that if the big bang originated from a single spinning point, than all the galaxies should be spinning in the same direction. However, this is untrue, because when the big bang went off, the only thing that existed was pure energy which eventually cooled into matter, and formed galaxies. The formation of galaxies is likely isotropic, which means that they will spin in a random direction from the start of their independent formation [1] [2] [3]. If your still confused, review my sources and try looking into the big bang theory more.

Now, for my second rebuttal. Con states that if we humanize gods, than why don't those gods behave with our standards? However, it is apparent that gods in human history have behaved as humans do, representing anthropomorphism [5][6]. Gods from ancient Greece, Rome, Japan, etc, have all killed and destroyed enemies, showed wrath towards humans, and even committed adultery (especially with the Greek gods)[4]. Even in the bible, god kills the entire human race over a few sinners with a flood, bombs a city with meteors, and plagues the Egyptians. All of these actions are signs of vengeance and wrath, which are identified as human qualities [5][6]. Now can you tell me that these gods are not behaving like us humans do? No, because we created them as figments of our own minds, in order to fulfill needs for a leader figure. Also, it is believed that religion had been created and used to manipulate people throughout time for political and power benefits (see source seven) [7].

Religion still offers no good explanation for the existence/creation of our universe. No religion can be backed up by fact, religion is a figment of mankind, and science has basis on true facts and logical conclusions.

It doesn't matter how faithful you are, you simply can't deny the facts.

Sources:

http://physics.stackexchange.com... [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]

http://www.universetoday.com... [3]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [4]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [5]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [6]

https://pisoproject.wordpress.com... [7]
NoahIsRight

Con

You raise a good point, but you're wrong. I can't disprove your assumption that Gods were created by man, but religion DOES offer a better argument for the origins of the universe than atheism. As I said in my first argument atheism can't explain time, 3D space, The laws of physics, etc. The only possible explanation was that it was created by an all powerful god. If this is the answer for the origin of physics, it would mean that God overall created the universe.
Debate Round No. 3
MakeDebatingGreatAgain

Pro

I am glad my opponent has responded, and I am eager to complete this debate. All I ask is that con does not forfeit this debate, as I would like to achieve voter status. Now to my rebuttals:

My opponent concedes to my argument that religion is created by mankind. With this in mind, we can assume that the explanations religion offers for the origin of the universe are not only based on zero facts, but made up by us. If religion is a creation of mankind, and holds no proof, than it is discreditable. How can we believe something that is made up and holds no facts? It would be mindless to do so. Science holds proof, because it does prove the laws of physics and has theories regarding space-time backed by logic and mechanics [1][2][3]. It makes sense that our universe is governed by the laws of matter and physics, which makes everything in the universe happen in a certain way. All of these theories can prove aspects of our universe, such as the properties of space time, quantum mechanics, and classical physics [4].

My opponents claim that atheism doesn't prove the laws of time and space makes no sense. I have referenced science as the best explanation to the origins of the universe, rather than religion. I never referenced atheism as being able to prove the laws of our universe ,and/or its origins. Atheism is simply the belief usually associated with science. Not all scientists are atheists, but the field of science we are discussing [5], it is dominated by atheism. The explanations provided by religion are extremely unlikely to be true, while the explanations offered by science are based on facts and logic. The laws of science are far more accurate than silly stories told by churches and religions worldwide. Science is the best answer because it only came to our society when technology was advanced enough to let us truly observe how the world functions. Religion had been around since the beginning of mankind, and still has no credible or reasonable evidence.

I know that it can be hard to abandon ones faith in a particular religion, and I am not asking this of con. They can believe what they want to, but what I am trying to state is that religion offers no true or credible explanation for the origins of the universe. I ask of the voters to vote Pro, because I have provided sources and claims that counter all of con's claims and arguments, without con being able to truly refute my arguments. However,
I have enjoyed this debate, and I wish good luck on my opponent with their final argument.

Sources:


https://en.wikipedia.org... [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]

https://www.spec2000.net... [4]

https://en.wikipedia.org... [5]

All Sources:


https://en.wikipedia.org... 

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://physics.stackexchange.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.universetoday.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://pisoproject.wordpress.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.spec2000.net...

https://en.wikipedia.org...



- MakeDebatingGreatAgain
NoahIsRight

Con

You still have not disproven my argument. I am not questioning the existence of scientific laws, I am asking how they came to be. Unless its A. omnipotent and B. sentient, something cannot always exist, have no beginning, and have no end. The big bang happened because of the laws of science, and physics. The laws of science and physics exist because we have 3D space, and time. We have 3D space and time because... well... Other than god, we can't have those things.

The only possible explanation for the universe ultimately comes down to the fact that god DOES exist. Science has no explanation for this.

I'm glad we had this debate, its let me know which areas I'm bad in debating, so I can learn to debate them better. May the best debater win!
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
It sucks that no one voted on this debate. I chose this topic because I know it would be a hot topic on this site, and I got several comments, but not a single vote. Somewhat dissapointing, but I guess that's just the nature of this site.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Thanks for the advice, but I thought I did explain my position on science somewhat in my arguments. Maybe I didn't explain it enough, yet I still had fun with this debate.
Posted by Enferno 1 year ago
Enferno
@MakeDebatingGreatAgain
"So you're saying that the topic should have been changed, and that we were arguing too much against each others views rather than arguing for our own views? I think that's what you were saying, but I'm not entirely sure..."

The title could have been formulated better for the debate.

As to attempt to clarify the debate structure itself:

Cons arguments are to provide sufficient evidence that religion does have the truth for the origins of the universe.

Pro's arguments are to address why Con's arguments do not have the evidence required to accept the claims as true, usually by pointing out flaws in logic.

It is not *required* of Pro to put forth another origin of the universe claim as a means to disprove Con's claim, although a person can do so.

It's not a 'bad' debate, at least for one to get better. identifying arguments made is probably the best thing to work on for both sides.
Too much is off the main discussion to me.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
So you're saying that the topic should have been changed, and that we were arguing too much against each others views rather than arguing for our own views? I think that's what you were saying, but I'm not entirely sure...
Posted by Enferno 1 year ago
Enferno
I'm actually puzzling over who has burden of proof in this debate.

The debate title should have been titled to identify this more easily more like:
"Does religion have logical or provable conclusions to the origins of the universe?"

Pro would defend this(in this case, Noah) while Con (in this case,Make) would simply need to point out perceived flaws in Pro's logic.
Pro could point out perceived flaws with Cons logic.
And back and forth.

However, the title is "There is no logical or provable conclusion to the origins of the universe through religion."
After thinking on it for about 20 minutes:

I think the burden of proof is still on Con(Noah), since the default is to not believe something to to be true. Unless sufficient evidence is presented to support it, of course.
Since religion is part of 'something' in this context, it should not be believe without sufficient evidence.

Claims made from science also have a burden of proof, but I'd point out that's not even on topic, as only religion claims about the origin of the universe *should be* the topic.

A 'Prove why YOUR universe origin claims are the best answer. Attempting to weaken other origin claims to make yours looks stronger is irrelevant to the topic.'
Posted by NoahIsRight 1 year ago
NoahIsRight
Ah, so thats what those were... In the future I'll try and keep an eye out for those sorts of things.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
I think my opponent has rebutted the parts of my arguments with the source numbers ([1], [2], etc). They said they were new to this site, so I guess this is an easy mistake to make. But just to clarify, the bracketed numbers are references to the sources down below that I used in my arguments.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Ok thanks for that reassurance.
Posted by Enferno 1 year ago
Enferno
@MakeDebatingGreatAgain
"Good point enferno, but you kinda spoiled my debate.... I'm not sure what arguments I can use, as the ones I was planning on using where very similar to yours. So, dont acuse me of coping your arguments... I'm not sure why you are arguing against con in the comment section, but I guess its fine, just don't dominate this debate, as you are not in it."

I won't accusing you of copying.
I just see debates and post in comments.
Posted by MakeDebatingGreatAgain 1 year ago
MakeDebatingGreatAgain
Good point enferno, but you kinda spoiled my debate.... I'm not sure what arguments I can use, as the ones I was planning on using where very similar to yours. So, dont acuse me of coping your arguments... I'm not sure why you are arguing against con in the comment section, but I guess its fine, just don't dominate this debate, as you are not in it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.