The Instigator
brokenboy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mathaelthedestroyer
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

there is a creator- even science proves this

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mathaelthedestroyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,469 times Debate No: 13217
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

brokenboy

Pro

RULES: this is about whether or not there is a creator therefore we are not allowed to narrow this debate to a particular religon.
also to allow this debate to run more smoothly please number you arguments so that we and the veiwers can more easily identify the arguments.

Now to start my argument i will state some reasons why you cannot disprove that there is a god/creator.

1) If there was no God to create the universe, then the universe must have been an accident. If the universe is an accident, so is our thinking. If our thinking is an accident, we have no reason to believe it. This is absurd because we have already established the universe exists but cannot establish our existence as a subset of said universe. The only other two options left are nihilism and God.

2) Any attempt to refute God that holds any weight relies on logic. Therefore the argument presupposes the existence of logic. Logical truths cannot be proven without reference to God. Therefore any argument against God presupposes the existence of God.

Now i will state how exactly science proves that there is a god.

1) Stephan Hawkins: "If the rate of expansion one seacond after the big bang had been swallowed by one part out of one hundred thousand million the universe would have recolapsed before it even reached its present size." In other words there would be no universe, further more if the ratio of the electro magnetic force constant to the gravitational constant was more than one part over the electro magnitism would dominate gravity preventing the formation of stars and the galaxy. With this in mind it leads us to the ultimate question how did the big bang happen, was it nature? NO how could it be the Physics in eienstien agreed that time, space, and matter were all co-related meaning that they could not exist without each other wich means that there would be *no nature* how then could the sudden explosion into existance of time, space, and matter come out of nature, nature does not create nature it is impossible. Thus if it wasn't a natural phenomenon then there is only one answer it had to be a supernatural phenomenon!

2) In the process of evolution the organisims strive to achieve better bodily perfection to adapt and change to the enviroment my question is why then would one organism be prey to another if they are constantly achieving higher organism state there should be no trees or plants for that matter and that means that there would be no herbavors only carnivors and yet with what appears to be inteligence organisms were created to help other organisms.

fundamentally untill scientist can create sothing out f nothing then there is no valid argument to the fact that god doesnt exist.

i would like to thank any who give a valid argument against my arguments and look forward to debating
Mathaelthedestroyer

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate such an interesting and important topic. I won't waste any more time on formality, so I'll go ahead and begin.

1) This argument creates a very blatant false dichotomy. You present the only two options as being "God did it" or "It was an accident." This is, of course, very flawed thinking. On what authority can you claim to know these are the only two options? Why is a third, forth, fifth, or any other number of options not possible? You then draw conclusions from this false premise, which logically make the conclusions flawed as well. In addition, you use the word "accident" incorrectly. If something is an accident, that implies that it is done for reasons other than its purpose; in other words, that it happened in a way that it was not supposed to. This assumes that there was a way it was "supposed" to happen and that it did not play out that way. This is also flawed thinking and is a common misuse of the word.

2) To use logic does not presuppose its 'existence.' It presupposes that there are certain combinations of words that human beings generally agree make sense together and a certain combination that don't. You also create a non sequitur by saying "Logical truths cannot be proven without reference to God." Logical truths cannot be "proven" at all because they are abstract concepts. Again, logic holds truth because we agree that certain things are logical and certain things are not. It does not "exist" anymore than luck, coincidence, jealousy, or anything else human beings give meaning to. And even IF it presupposed God, I'd like you to explain why it have to presuppose the God you believe in (or are arguing for) and not another god or gods.

Science proves there is a God:
1) This argument is also flawed. Stephen Hawking and many other physicists are often misquoted or misinterpreted as saying things like this. It is true to say that the universe does depend on certain "finely tuned" aspects, and that without them, it may either not exist or be very different. The second part is important. You argue that had anything been different, the universe would not have come into existence. This is possible, but it is also possible that it simply would have been a totally different universe. Atoms may have been the size of planets; atoms might not have existed at all. Something completely different may have. Who is to say which outcome is "right" and which one isn't? It also stems from yet another common misconception: the "nothing from nothing" argument. What you have to understand is that in space, "nothing" is not really nothing. "Nothing" refers to having zero net energy. This situation arises from energy (having positive net energy) and gravity (having negative net energy) cancelling each other out, and creating "nothing." In this "nothing," quantum particles sporadically pop in and out and existence. If this happens in a certain way, quantum fluctuation can occur; if quantum fluctuation occurs, a singularity can form. A singularity is what the Big Bang originated as, so you can see how this creates a cycle. Keep in mind the laws of Thermodynamics, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

2) Evolution does not mean "get better." Evolution means organisms change over time. Natural Selection means that the organisms most suited to survive will indeed survive, and those less suited won't. The reason predators and prey continue to exist is because as the prey develops better ways to fight or hide from the predator, so the predator develops better ways to catch or kill the prey. They are not necessarily getting "better," they are just becoming more adept.

Finally, your last statement is also a logical fallacy. It is a non sequitur to say that since science cannot answer a question, that must mean God did it. There is no reason to think this. I would also refer to Laurence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" lecture on YouTube. It is fascinating, informative, and will probably answer a lot of your questions. Thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
brokenboy

Pro

brokenboy forfeited this round.
Mathaelthedestroyer

Con

My opponent has forfeited his round. I took this challenge under the assumption that he or she wanted to debate this topic, so I hope this person doesn't forfeit their next round as well.

I have nothing further to add to my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
brokenboy

Pro

brokenboy forfeited this round.
Mathaelthedestroyer

Con

Once again, my opponent has forfeited. I saw no indication that this debate was no longer open or that he or she no longer wished to participate. I believe I have done a good job in refuting all of of his points, and I hope readers will vote in that respect.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
brokenboy

Pro

brokenboy forfeited this round.
Mathaelthedestroyer

Con

I have nothing more to add.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
Well I guess I set myself up for that one. You win this round.
Posted by omelet 4 years ago
omelet
I voted, you're welcome.
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
If no one votes on this and it ends up being a tie, I'm going to kill myself.
Posted by omelet 6 years ago
omelet
He's a well-known creationist on the site. It may be better that you just look him up. http://www.debate.org...

Sorry I accepted this debate. It turns out I didn't have the time to invest in it. So in about 2 and a half hours, my time will expire, and the debate will become open again. You'll get a new opponent rather quickly, I think. Sorry for delaying things, it wasn't my intention. I hope your debate goes well for whoever accepts it.
Posted by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
god sands?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Is this guy serious?
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Looks like Godsands forgot his password...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by omelet 4 years ago
omelet
brokenboyMathaelthedestroyerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
brokenboyMathaelthedestroyerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
brokenboyMathaelthedestroyerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07