is the belief in a God/Creator more logical than the belief of scientific theory
Debate Rounds (4)
If science is based upon logic and proven theory then a God is more logical than the current big bang theory.
I claim that:
It's possible that not all things necessarily require a beginning.
Even if this were the case, the Big Bang didn't necessarily have to be the ultimate beginning of the universe.
And even if THIS were the case, supporting evidence aligns with the Big Bang Theory far more than the suggestion of a divine, intelligent creator.
If I can convince dear reader of any of these three points, it should more than suffice.
Back to PRO!
Also although I am a believer in God my argument is not to prove Gods existence as this is impossible to "prove" its rather to prove that the God theory is the more logical theory of the two and that scientific theory is in turn more irrational, to believe something began is logical, its common sense, a theory that space, matter, atoms or anything else created themselves from nothing is surely more unrealistic than the belief that something created them, atheists tend to base there arguments againsts Gods existence on religious scripture rather than the actual fundamental belief in a creator of the universe.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: Something from Nothing
While the Big Bang Theory makes no claims that we came from nothing, there are certain theories that suggest this is possible - the Uncertainty Principle being chief among them.
Heisenberg's principle offers a startling possibility, that something CAN possibly come from nothing, and this concept led Hendrik Casimir to discover what would be termed the "Casimir Effect".
To summarize, this experiment led to the understanding that even in a perfect vacuum energy still exists and can have an observable effect on physical matter. This leads us to "virtual particles". These incredibly fascinating little guys seem to violate our current understanding of physics and allow room for a "something from nothing" argument.
The Big Bang: Origin of our Known Universe
I'd like to start by saying that the Big Bang Theory DOES NOT claim our universe came into existence from nothing. This is an assumption oft made by those who lack an understanding of the theory.
The Big Bang Theory only suggests how our present state came to be. It speaks nothing of where the initial matter may have come from, or what was before. While the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation, there are many supporting observations that coincide with this theory:
Cosmic Background Radiation: CMB
CMB is thermal radiation, the characteristics of which match the theory that everything was in a singular, hot, dense state and expanded outward in every direction, and began cooling over time.
Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm, and is one of the strongest cases for the Big Bang Theory.
Large Scale Structure and Red Shift
Measurements of celestial bodies around us to help determine direction, distance, speed, and size.
These offer supporting evidence, and make the Big Bang much more reasonable than a belief without.
There seems to be confusion between believing something based on reason versus believing something based on faith.
These two are drastically different:
Having reasonable evidence to support your belief grants you knowledge.
Having a willingness to believe in your belief grants you faith.
This is not an attack on religion, or the god of my opponent or anyone reading. This is the different groundwork between a scientific theory and belief in a faith-based system.
Divinity vs. Data
Referring back to the title "is the belief in a God/Creator more logical than the belief of scientific theory"
A belief in any creator is not logical, as this belief depends on logical fallacies and rests on an absence of evidence.
A belief in a scientific theory is logical because it depends on observable laws of the universe and rests on ever-growing evidence.
It would be highly illogical to choose a belief based on no observable evidence that rests on a foundation of absence.
Virtual particles open the possibility of a "something from nothing" argument.
The Big Bang Theory is supported with substantial amounts of data, making it a highly reasonable belief.
No evidence supports the belief of a divine creator of any sort, thus making this belief highly illogical and unreasonable.
PRO's resolution remains negated.
Electrons "orbit" the nucleus of atoms at incredible speeds. They are always orbiting. As much as we humans know about about energy, is that without an external source, everything will eventually run out of energy. Thus, it is not logical that matter has always existed nor is it logical that matter came into existence from nothing, as there would have needed to be energy in the first place for the matter to create itself. Also, as much as humans know about motion, it is not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else, thus it is not logical that electrons would be in motion unless something started them to be in motion, it may be possible that any of these points can happen but it is the illogical argument, the argument with least scientific proof.
The fact that it appears that there seems to be substantially more matter than antimatter (which in theory would be 50-50 if a non-Divine 'big bang' produced the universe) also suggests that the universe was designed (some say that perhaps there is a huge amount of antimatter). If matter/antimatter is not 50-50, then that violates a law of parity/balance in physics. So, this is another reason that physicists should consider a Divine Creator. It is also the most simple conclusion aswell as the conclusion which make most sense, reality is reality and is in general simple, you can create a mathematical theory to say that 2 + 2 = 5 and can argue that it may be possible, but realistically 2 + 2 = 4.
The fact of radioactivity also suggests that matter has not always existed. Radioactive substances are in a state of constant disintegration, thus if they would have been disintegrating forever, there would be no radioactive matter left. And science has proved that radioactive matter still exists.
To get around this point, some scientists suggest that the atomic structure of matter is reconfigured every several billion/trillion years through a hypothesis known as the oscillating universe theory, it is an interesting idea, but one that there is absolutely no proof for, as well as one that violates the known laws of physics as well as the known pattern of the universe. One on its major tenets is that as energy is exhausted from our expanding universe, the gravity of the universe finally brings all matter together for a later reconfiguration (and explosion). This concept is absurd: it is like saying that after all material in an explosion stops moving that the attraction of all the material will bring it back together. I used to use firecrackers as a child and can tell you this does not happen. I understand about the effects of gravity and friction, but there is no friction in outerspace, thus there is nothing to slow the expansion down. Furthermore, the Hubble telescope has proved that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, rather than decreasing, thus totally disproving the oscillating universe theory. Many scientists now have correctly concluded that the universe will expand forever. This happens to be consistent with what the Bible teaches (Isaiah 9:7). I always felt that the oscillating universe theory violated the known laws of physics and was an attempt by some scientists to try to persuade themselves that there the universe had no beginning and that there was no God.
A belief many evolutionists falsely cling to is that life somehow sprang up from inanimate matter. A leading law of biology is biogenesis. The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. The non-God theory of human-life would have us believe that protein-like substances became alive, somehow figured that it had to eat, somehow knew what to eat, figured out how to eat it, figured out how to digest what was eaten, then figured out how to reproduce so that it would not die out. I find this hard to accept. Single-celled creatures are too complicated to have simply came together by random chance in order to live. The idea that this life somehow knew how to evolve and turn into humans over time is just as absurd. I'm not attempting to deal with all aspects of evolution, but will state that the fossil records do not support the evolutionary concept that species gradually evolved into other species, Darwin thought that over time this would occur, but to this date, it still has not, hence the argument by some religious people "why havn't all the monkeys evolved into humans" which may seem silly but is actually a good point.
It has been argued that the fact that there is natural law, design, and order in the universe, this would prove that there was a law giver, designer, and order maker in the universe. This is consistent partly with what the Bible teaches on this subject.
So to get onto science's main theory the "Big Bang Theory" many scientists and generally people who aggressively argue against a creator fail to realise that in 1927, it was a Belgian priest named Georges Lema"tre used Einstein's General Relativity equations to propose a radical idea the universe is expanding. Two years later, Edwin Hubble confirmed Lema"tre's hypothesis; it later became known as the "Big Bang" theory. The idea of an expanding universe did not sit well with a number of physicists, however, including Einstein. Why? Because it meant the universe had a beginning, and they knew that has enormous theological implications. Fast forward to the present. Due to a number of dramatic empirical confirmations in the last century, scientists now are unable to deny that a Big Bang occurred and the universe is expanding. However, many physicists have been trying to come up with models that explain the evidence and include a Big Bang, yet somehow avoiding an absolute beginning to the universe and further more questions such as who created the space in which the big bang happened, or the energy itself that caused it to occur the physicist Alexander Vilenkin has proved mathematically that all the models physicists have conceived of to avoid a beginning, must themselves have a beginning. His proof has been reported by numerous science journals and blogs.
Thus making it I believe that the logical explanation for the universe is a creator, therefor making it logical for most people to believe in the God theory.
PRO suggests that God is impossible to prove, but should still be considered more logical a choice than a scientific theory with a great deal of supporting evidence. This statement at it's most basic asserts that we should consider a god belief more reasonable than a scientific theory even if neither theory has any evidence. This statement reflects case after case of special pleading that can be seen throughout my opponents argument.
"to believe something began is logical, its common sense, a theory that space, matter, atoms or anything else created themselves from nothing is surely more unrealistic than the belief that something created them"
This is a nonsensical claim, and no quotes or citations of any theory is given to support this supposed stance. By PRO's logic, a god would be unrealistic, since nothing created the god in question. Why would one theory be held to this bar but not the other? Another case of special pleading.
"The laws of logic show materialism is false by revealing that non-physical causes exist and laws of logic point to a rationality beyond the universe."
No examples or citations given to support this claim.
"If there was not, then the universe is completely random and life has no purpose."
The universe is not random, understanding the Big Bang and it's production of expected outcomes could lead one to believe that life was an inevitability in our universe.
"Purpose" is a subjective human concept we assign to things to give them value. If I were in a rainstorm and discovered a cave, than it's "purpose" is to keep me dry and warm. However when I leave, this is no longer it's purpose. This word has no meaning outside of subjective human consideration and cannot apply to the universe in such a fashion.
Even if it were true that the universe is both random and meaningless - one's desire for it to have intention and meaning do not support how it may have come into existence.
"If there was a God, does this God still exist and if so does this existence affect our lives although this does not directly apply to the question being debated. So because there now is existence, then something has always existed."
This is outstandingly circular, and offers no support to the claim that a god is more logical than a scientific theory.
"Either God always existed or matter has always existed. If there was no God, then matter has always existed."
A bit of a false dichotomy, as we don't know this to be the case. Even assuming this is true, it does not falsify the Big Bang theory, and doesn't potentially violate any rationality, especially since we know so little about existence before the universe existed.
"it is not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else"
The Big Bang does not violate this concept, a god theory does.
"The fact that it appears that there seems to be substantially more matter than antimatter"
Physical laws may favor matter over anti-matter, processes that annihilate one but not the other:
"Radioactive substances are in a state of constant disintegration, thus if they would have been disintegrating forever, there would be no radioactive matter left."
Radioactive substances are formed in the crucible of stars and don't last forever.
"This happens to be consistent with what the Bible teaches (Isaiah 9:7)."
"Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David"s throne
and over his kingdom"
Israel is big, but it's no universe. (And there hasn't been much peace in the past couple thousand years)
"The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life."
Abiogenesis is not biogenesis.
Asexual - not sexual
Apolitical - not politic
Asymptomatic - not symptomatic
Abiogenesis - not biogenesis
"The non-God theory of human-life would have us believe that protein-like substances became alive, somehow figured that it had to eat, somehow knew what to eat, figured out how to eat it, figured out how to digest what was eaten, then figured out how to reproduce so that it would not die out."
A strawman. If you have any questions about evolution, visit:
This website has a counter-argument for every "argument" ever given.
"Single-celled creatures are too complicated to have simply came together by random chance in order to live."
They didn't come together by chance, this argument is called "irreducible complexity" and has been debunked:
"but will state that the fossil records do not support the evolutionary concept"
Fossilization is a rare event, and discovering a fossil is rare as well. Even with this being the case we constantly find transitional fossils that support evolution.
"why havn't all the monkeys evolved into humans"
We didn't come from monkeys:
Evolution is not a singular, linear ladder. You don't "level up" to the next species and go on your merry way.
If white Americans and Australians are both descended from Europeans, how come there are still Europeans?
If dogs are domesticated wolves, how come there are still wolves?
If rock and roll came from the blues, how come there is still the blues?
If Protestants came from Catholics, how come there are still Catholics?
If Christians came from Jews, how come there are still Jews?
PRO's entire argument is working under the "god of the gaps" concept.
PRO has copied and pasted the vast majority of his argument from another website, has failed to counter ANY of my arguments, and has steered the debate off track with fallacies and unrelated topics.
It would appear my opponent simply wishes to preach, and has no interest in a valid debate or offering any material for consideration.
Thanks for reading, on to round 4.
Next I would like to address your misinterpretation of what theory and fact actually mean, from reading your comments and arguments on this debate you claim the big bang theory as fact.
Theory - A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
Fact - A thing that is known to be true
No scientific theory is absolute fact they are ideas/conclusions which have been proven beyond reasonable doubt (at best) or studied and tested opinions of individuals (at least) they are of course worth there weight but in context are not absolute fact. To hold a view that theory is fact in the context of science is a very damaging view, as if all science is fact there is no room for debate, testing or new ideas, making the role of science itself void. All scientific theories including the big bang have and continue to evolve and change with new research thus never making them absolute fact. The very existence of sciences god of the gaps analogy should prove theories have gaps not making them absolute fact.
Now on the subject of fact, it could be deemed as fact that when discussing the big bang theory your left with only 2 conclusions, that prior the big bang "something" existed and that energy itself both begins/ends at some point. If it was energy, matter or anything else that is the "something" which previously existed there is no explanation as to how that energy or matter itself came into existence. Without contradicting all scientific theory that the universe's existence is completely random and void of any purpose.
In accordance with your rebuttals of my prior argument;
God is impossible to completely prove in the same way that the big bang is impossible to completely prove unless we can witness god or have witnessed the big bang, witnessing would also be subjective dependant on individual.
Your claim that it is indeed nonsensical for any individual to believe "something began is logical" is in itself nonsensical, the world around us, everything that's in it has had some form of beginning, my computer had a beginning of some kind whether in the factory it was made or even the mind/imagination of its initial creator, it came into existence through planned action, a varying belief that it created itself would be the more illogical thought process.
Materialism can have a very simplistic definition as random or without purpose or prior cause, to in itself believe that my pen on my table can move without any outside force is not to believe in the random or without cause/purpose but to in fact believe in the very contradictory of that theory.
If from your belief point the universe is not completely random that in itself is a belief that it has a purpose and things were planned in some way, this would lead on to mean that matter created itself with a purpose and is again a contradiction of scientific theory.
"because there is now existence, then something has always existed" has been taken out of context I went on to explain either god always existed or matter has always existed, matter science will claim is inanimate and needs energy to exist, there is no proof it can create its own existence nor is there proof that energy can become a reality out of nothing, if god has always existed this argument doesn't say everything requires a cause - only things that begin to exist. If God is eternal, then he doesn't have a beginning. He therefore doesn't require a cause. In that case, it doesn't make sense to ask, "Who made God?" It's like asking, Who made the thing that wasn't made.
The big bang theory totally contradicts that 'its not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else' something must have caused the big bang to occur, how is it possible otherwise ? and would it be deemed as logical explanation.
If radioactive substances are constantly disintegrating and have been doing so since the big bang and even prior to it, there should be no radioactive matter left, it should have actually run out prior to the big bang unless of course it continues creating itself from nothing.
"life can only come from life' any theory void of this concept would itself be a belief in an initial creator, if life does not come from life then the only other feasible argument is it was created from nothing, thus making it non random and rather planned.
So the only feasible arguments for the universe coming into existence prior to the big bang without a creator are that
The universe created itself from nothing. That's nonsense, people who claim such things are making horrible equivocations - they're equating "nothing" with something. By "nothing" they mean the quantum vacuum, which is definitely something, and which requires an explanation of its own.
In our experience, causes are always physical. Thus, there can be no non-physical causes. The cause of the universe cannot be physical because matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. So, either the universe just popped into existence from nothing without any cause (something contrary to both intuition and experience), or it has a non-physical cause.
Quantum particles come into existence without a cause. Do they? Quantum particles are said to emerge from a quantum vacuum that is constantly fluctuating with energy, and is governed by physical laws and forces, such as gravity. Sounds like there are plenty of possible causes there. It would be more accurate to say that some quantum events/particles appear to occur without any detectable cause. That's very different.
The laws of nature have been tested scientifically, God's existence hasn't. Think about what you're claiming. Something immaterial, invisible, eternal, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, all-powerful, and transcendent has been tested scientifically, but God hasn't? That seems odd. Actually, it's not accurate to say the laws of nature have been tested scientifically - the laws themselves haven't, regularities have. The laws are invisible and immaterial. It's only the effects (regularities) that can be studied scientifically. Rather, scientists have postulated the existence of laws to explain and describe the regularities. In so doing, however, scientists assume the existence of something remarkably similar to God, that even fills the same role as God (governing/sustaining the universe). Hence my conclusion: if it's rational to believe in the laws of nature, it is equally rational to believe in God.
Next onto my final argument an argument most atheists don't wish to acknowledge, the popularity of the God theory even in a country such as America, where generally speaking all children are taught from an early age in scientific theory, 8 out of 10 Americans still believe that the universe has a creator and/or there is a God. Atheists make up only 2.9% of the worlds population. Ill give a complementary statistic on your part, as far as a Cambridge university study in 2005 88% of the worlds population believes in a god theory which culminates in the belief that this god created the universe. Are atheists really that arrogant and self engrossed to believe truly that such a majority of individuals worldwide are totally irrational and inept of clear rational thought, if it is indeed so illogical as you claim to believe in a god why do so many people continue within there 'non sensicle' beliefs.
"your misinterpretation of what theory and fact actually mean, from reading your comments and arguments on this debate you claim the big bang theory as fact."
The word "fact" hasn't been used in my entire debate while my opponent has used it 15 times. Please allow me to give a proper explanation since an erroneous one was just given. A scientific theory is not simply an "idea" on its way to becoming law or fact:
Scientific Law: An objective description of the natural world.
Scientific Fact: An observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true".
(Truth in science, however is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.)
Scientific Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Aspects of evolution, the Big Bang, and even gravity contain all three of these concepts. They are not mutually exclusive, and even something considered scientific fact is not absolute.
"All scientific theories including the big bang have and continue to evolve and change with new research thus never making them absolute fact."
Of which was never treated as such, only a reasonable conclusion with mounting evidence. A belief in a god is less so, as it's entirely faith driven.
My opponent stresses that "absolute fact" is key to a logical and reasonable choice, then wouldn't science still come out on top? A fact, even poorly understood, with supporting evidence is still more logical than a faith based belief with no facts at all.
The Big Bang and the Uncaused Cause
"it could be deemed as fact that when discussing the big bang theory your left with only 2 conclusions"
We simply don't know what was before the Big Bang, or the mechanisms that may have caused it (if it had a cause). Asserting that it's factually impossible for there to be any other option is unreasonable and illogical. Asserting that it must have been a highly unlikely and unprovable cause is even more illogical and complicates the issue even further.
"God is impossible to completely prove in the same way that the big bang is impossible to completely prove unless we can witness god or have witnessed the big bang"
We can offer supporting evidence and objective observations to suggest the Big Bang occurred. We do not have to witness something first hand to reasonably suggest its existence. However, we have neither the witness accounts nor supporting evidence to support a creator, making PRO's claim illogical.
"everything that's in it (existence) has had some form of beginning"
I've provided evidence on this subject; and my opponent makes assertions without any. Radioactive decay and virtual particles have given weight to my claim that actions can truly be without cause. Even if my opponent's statement was taken to be true, it still doesn't make a creator any more likely, or explain who created the creator.
"If God is eternal, then he doesn't have a beginning. He therefore doesn't require a cause. In that case, it doesn't make sense to ask"
This statement is highly contradictory to PRO's overall case. My opponent claims that her creator doesn't need a creator, but yet considers it highly illogical to believe that something comes from nothing. These two lines of thinking cannot coexist.
"Something must have caused the big bang to occur"
This assertion is made without evidence, and I have provided uncontested evidence to suggest an alternative. Even assuming that the universe must have had a cause, it's still an unreasonable leap to assume it must have been a specific, unprovable deity.
Patterns Do Not Imply Intelligence
"If from your belief point the universe is not completely random that in itself is a belief that it has a purpose and things were planned in some way, this would lead on to mean that matter created itself with a purpose and is again a contradiction of scientific theory."
Patterns do not imply intelligence. A river flows through the path of least resistance. The water therein has no intelligence, no willful guidance system, nor any exciting plans as to what it's going to do once it arrives to an alternative body of water. Even with this being the case, water still flows uniformly and predictably. I can know with some certainty the river outside my house will continue to remain in its riverbed, and will flow the same direction it flowed yesterday. The river flows because the objective laws of the universe leave no other option. The river flows from inevitability, not "accident".
"If radioactive substances are constantly disintegrating and have been doing so since the big bang and even prior to it"
We have no knowledge or claims of what happened prior to the Big Bang. Everything on the planet, and in the universe gives off radiation.
Suggesting we'll "run out" is ignoring the fact that radiation is abundant and newly created under natural and synthetic circumstances.
Ad Populum - Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong!
if it is indeed so illogical as you claim to believe in a god why do so many people continue within there 'non sensicle' beliefs."
Following this fallacious ad populum reasoning, you must be Muslim, as it currently holds 22.74% of the world's believers, much greater than the 16.85% Catholicism holds (being Christian majority).
"religion" itself may be the majority, but there's thousands of religions that combat one another (both literally and metaphorically). Some are pantheistic, others polytheistic, some atheistic, and even others monotheistic. They contradict one another, and can possess drastically different concepts of how the world was created, who created it, why, and those similar have hundreds or thousands of nuances that change their overall conformity. Realizing this, atheism and agnosticism beats out many existing religions.
Suggesting that your minority religion is the truth; under the pretense of ad populum is contradictory. Especially since at some point Christianity itself came into existence, meaning that your faith started out with less than 2% of the world's population, yet you still believe.
It was insane to question a flat earth when the majority believed it so.
It was irrational (and dangerous) to challenge the geocentric model of the galaxy.
Smoking is healthy, sneezing allows the devil access to your soul, witches exist, wolves are Satan's envoys. The list goes on.
Believing something doesn't make it so. And simply accepting an idea as truth simply because it is believed by a majority is irrational.
Something potentially can come from nothing. The Big Bang didn't necessarily need to have a beginning. If it did, no evidence supports the belief in a deity being involved.
My opponent relies on an unprovable assumption: That a deity exists. This assumption is made with no evidence, and contradicts what evidence we do have.
A baseless assumption is highly irrational.
A scientific theory supported with evidence and coinciding observations is rational.
My opponent succinctly wrapped up my entire argument in one sentence:
"The laws of nature have been tested scientifically, God's existence hasn't."
This alone explains why it's illogical to believe in a deity rather than science.
Thanks for reading!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by carriead20 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate to both! Although Con did make slightly better points and had more sources the conduct and grammar went to pro.
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.