There is not enough evidence for the existence of God
Debate Round Forfeited
SafeWalk12 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||2 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||180 times||Debate No:||94863|
Debate Rounds (4)
For round 1 I shall be making my opening statement and my opponent is welcome to rebut.
From the time that I was a Christian, I always had doubts about the reality of the situation concerning the existence of a god, and I have looked into the subject thoroughly with my current standing as an atheist, and from my research, I have yet to come across enough evidence, or arguments which could not be rebutted for the existence of a god, any god. Due to the technological advancements and the insertion of logical and rational thinking humanity has done, my conclusion is that there is no god, and we simply do not know the answer to 'where did everything including the universe come from?'.
My opponent can either make their opening statement or argue against mine.
I believe that we have plenty of scientific evidence to prove that there could be a god. It's just that we will probably never know who or what and where he is.
You say "we simply do not know the answer to 'where did everything including the universe come from?"
Yes we do not, but there has got to be an answer to the question. In my argument I will be considering the big bang as the start of the universe, as it is by far the most likely.
In the Big Bang, there was a massive ball of matter and antimatter, in something that we call a singularity. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes. Anyway, when the big bang expanded, time started, physics started, everything that exists today all started. As it expanded, the majority of the matter and anti-matter destroyed each other, but at the end a little bit of the matter survived, which became the universe as it is today,
So, what created the matter and anti-matter in the big bang? A definite law in physics is that "You cannot make matter out of nothing" Of course quantum fluctuations could be an exception to this rule, but they are created in pairs of particle/antiparticle, which cancel each other out, and since there was matter that was left after the big bang (the matter we have today) quantum fluctuations could not have been the full picture. Therefore, something must have created perhaps the entire big bang or added on to the possibility of a massive quantum fluctuation. That 'something' could be considered a 'god', a creator.
To add on, what created physics? What created time? What made the four fundamental interactions that exist today? They too were created in the Big Bang, and these could not have been made by quantum fluctuations, because they aren't made out of matter. Of course we may discovers more truths about this, perhaps with a deeper understanding about dark energy or dark matter.
In conclusion, I am proposing that the fact of 'you cannot create matter out of nothing' is evidence that there could be a god. Even so if the 'god' that I speak of is not the kind of god we expect today, along as it created the universe, shouldn't it still be considered the 'god'?
For the question of what created the Big Bang, 'string theory' tackles that question by introducing a multiverse of universes, which is a part of string theory, meaning that there is a possibility that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes. This is the big splat theory (side note: which I should mention seems to further prove physicists are using onomatopoeia as a basis for the naming of theories). There is also the possibility that our universe sprouted from a parent universe which could follow the big crunch theory, or simply our universe popped into existence.
To emphasize more on our universe coming from nothing, apart from conveniently following occam's razor, it can be explained from the fact that matter has positive energy and gravity has negative energy. This, in conclusion leads to a universe with zero/close to zero net matter and energy when we realize that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy.
These are other possibilities apart from god which follow occam's razor better than the god, my rebuttal to your whole previous argument is simply contained in the first paragraph on this argument.
Your second paragraph just demonstrated quite a few interesting prospects of how the world started, but I'm afraid that you have too little evidence to prove any of it, as string theory is quite a new prospect and once again, has little proof but is a very interesting concept. However, once again, I believe something must have created the strings and branes in string theory, and even if the collision of branes did create our universe, something must have created those. Your multiple theories are quite interesting to research, but by using them, you are taking the subject further than the topic, and almost creating a paradox of creation. If you would like to discuss alternative theories of the creation of the universe perhaps you would like to make a separate debate to discuss those? I would imagine that I would find that greatly interesting.
The Zero-energy universe explains the energy in the universe, but you failed to explain how it would it be created, even though it has no matter and energy, there still has got to be a way for it to be there. I like the concept of it though, but there isn't much proof of it and it is merely still a hypothesis
The concept of god follows occam's razor just as well as your theories, unless we find some massive discovery about the dark stuff. The idea of god is just as possible as everything you have said. It is actually almost impossible to completely disprove god.
Secondly, the zero net energy 'and' matter universe's cause is that there is no cause. That is the whole point of that argument, it gives the universe no reason to exist. If you want it to be explained in more detail I suggest you read the link below:
Lastly, I would like to emphasize on subjective and objective evidence, or more specifically, the fact that to prove or validate the existence of something, we need objective evidence that cannot be rebutted in anyway. Your arguments have only given statements and suggestions, which I have proven to be rebutted. When talking about solid evidence for God, what we need is objective evidence that we can prove to be valid through observations. Your 'matter cannot be created from nothing' statement is not evidence because it is an incorrect rephrasing. Your arguments for round 3 tackle my suggestions and gives the overall sense of 'God could possibly exist'. While I do agree, that is not evidence.
On a final note, it seems that your argument is a variation of the God of the gaps argument, that derives from 'we do not know how it happened, therefore God', which I should mention follows the argument from ignorance and the hasty generalization fallacies, and is again, are just statements and not objective evidence.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.