The Instigator
Zaephou
Pro (for)
The Contender
SafeWalk12
Con (against)

There is not enough evidence for the existence of 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  
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.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 327 times Debate No: 94863
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Zaephou

Pro

Round 1: My opponent is welcome to either make opening statements or present your arguments in a detailed fashion.

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.
SafeWalk12

Con

I was born into a catholic family, but I was raised very interested in science, and so I became agnostic

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'?
Debate Round No. 1
Zaephou

Pro

The law you refer to when you say 'You cannot make matter out of nothing', is an incorrect rephrasing of the law of conservation of mass, in which it is stated that matter cannot either be created or destroyed, and this was derived from observations we have made. The reason I see your statement as being incorrect is simply due to the fact that there has not been an observable 'nothing' in physics so far, thus meaning that we do not know what a 'nothing' behaves like, while your statement suggests we do know what a nothing behaves like. Therefore, while not ruling out the possibility of a god, your statement is invalidated as evidence for a 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.
SafeWalk12

Con

Addressed to your first paragraph, we has observed nothing, as in a space with all matter removed, but we haven't discovered the un-removable stuff, such as dark matter/ energy. We do not know what that behaves like, but you are suggesting that matter could come from dark matter/energy, but we have not discovered anything of that yet so we cannot say who is correct or incorrect here, until we find out more about what is in "nothing"

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Zaephou

Pro

First of all, we know dark matter and energy exists because we have seen the effects of dark matter and traced these effects back to a cause we have named dark matter and energy. I am not suggesting matter could come from dark matter or energy, I am suggesting matter could come from nothing, and you first paragraph also proves my point that we do not know what nothing behaves like. Therefore, your previous rephrasing of the law of conservation of mass cannot be used as objective evidence.

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:

1. http://bigthink.com...

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.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Thank you for the response, but I wasn't trying to justify my point, I was pointing out other possibilities for what was before the universe by presenting a well thought out theoretical framework in theoretical physics, string theory.
Posted by Abeceda 1 year ago
Abeceda
Zaephou, if you are going to use unproven ideas such as the multiverse to justify your position, then the opposition may use magical unicorns with unimaginable powers to solve the problems that he has. Stay true to science, and don't wander off into the gray fields.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Hmm, that is a peculiar glitch
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Sorry if I come across in an aggressive manner, I just wanted to make sure you knew what my rebuttal was
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Sorry if I come across in an aggressive manner, I just wanted to make sure you knew what my rebuttal was
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Sorry if I come across in an aggressive manner, I just wanted to make sure you knew what my rebuttal was
Posted by SafeWalk12 1 year ago
SafeWalk12
I would prefer if you would speak to me in not such a scoffing tone, such as "my rebuttal to your whole previous argument is simply contained in the first paragraph on this argument". Makes it sound more like an argument than a debate, and that's not why I'm here. Also you don't have any objective evidence either, your theories were intriguing, but subjective.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
You need to provide objective evidence for God rather than subjective evidence.

While I am unsure as to whether your comment is supposed to be satirical or humorous, theism is based on belief rather than objective evidence.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
The fact that theists exist is proof that there is enough evidence for them for the existence of God(s). Your personal rebuttals are not convincing enough to change their mind.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.