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

Atheism Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
20cwells has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 112942
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Lets have a debate about atheism. I will chose the side of the Atheists. Con can start first.


the existence of the earth defies probability. Years ago, famed astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there are two necessary criterion for a planet to support life: the right kind of star and the planet must be the right distance from that star. That meant that there should have been an innumerable amount of life supporting planets in the observable universe. Therefore, scientists were optimistic when they launched the S.E.T.I program (search for extra terrestrial intelligence) equipped with a vast array of satellites in order to pick up anything that resembled an encoded signal. Over the years the silence from the universe was deafening. It was then that they realized that the early estimations were no longer tenable. Today, the number of stipulations for a planet to support life have risen to 200+ all of which must be met perfectly or else the whole thing falls apart. Mathematicians have come to the conclusion that the earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion oddity. At what point do we recognize that it requires far MORE faith to assume that it all "just happened" than to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of these criteria were met? However, the fine tuning required for the earth to exist is nothing compared to the requirements for the Universe to exist at all. Scientists now know that the four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces needed to be determined within one millionth of a second after the creation of the universe ( be it by the Big Bang, God, whatever) and any slight modification of the values of the forces would have resulted in the Universes non-existence. for example, if the ratio between the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force were altered by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction stars could not form and the universe would not exist.

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, I suppose that you can copy and paste argument from your other debates. This makes it unfair in my opinion but I am up for a challenge. Your first paragraph describes the improbability of life inhabiting planets. Although it is incredibly improbable, I believe you are experiencing confirmation bias. If Earth were uninhabitable or the universe was not tuned correctly, we would exist somewhere else. There is literally infinite space and it has has existed billions of years with billions more to come. This with the hypothesis of infinite universes makes it more than probable in my opinion. The second half of your paragraph seems to contain lots of word salad.

Your second paragraph describes irreducible complexity. A good example from your argument is the flagellum. The flagellum seems to be irreducibly complex but before it was a propulsion mechanism it may have served a different purpose and then was modified via evolution for a different purpose.


The universe MAY be infinite, but we can only see a finite section of it due to the finite speed of light. We can only see those parts from which light has had time to reach us since the beginning of the universe - which means we can (in theory) see a spherical universe with radius of about 47 billion light years. If I gave you some time to think about that I'm sure that you would come up with the following conclusion - "that means that the universe must have expanded faster than the speed of light at some point", which appears to violate special relativity. In fact that is what is thought to have happened, during a period called "inflation", and it does not violate special relativity since it is not a spatial motion, but the expansion of space itself. Which sets up an argument about time dilation that I can make later if the need arises. It also shows that we don't actually know that the Universe is infinite only that we haven't seen all of it yet.

Back to the question: if the universe is infinite beyond our horizon, is there an infinite number of potentially life-supporting planets?

If there is a finite probability of something happening (ie. a planet forming around a star, or a galaxy forming), then in an infinite universe there will be an infinite number of that thing. So there would be an infinite number of galaxies and planets in an infinite universe. If however there is an infinitesimal probability of something happening, then in an infinite universe there would only be a finite number of those things. Since I have mathematically proven that the existence of a life-supporting planet is infinitesimal mathematics shows that even in an infinite Universe there would only be a finite number of, or even only one, life-supporting planets.

I can empirically show that my arguments are true but you must make the assumption of a multiverse and the defiance of probability. thus I invoke Occam's Razor.

As for your next argument, I want to point out that I don't deny evolution. It happens only a fool says otherwise. However, if you look back at my argument, you see that even the most basic parts of the biological machinery have this irreducible complexity and CSI. This irreducible complexity has been found in the Bacterial Flagellum.

Since I have many more characters I would like to introduce a new argument, that of the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover. The original cause.

Let's explain it in this axiom.

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. The Universe exists
3. the universe must have had a cause.
4. the first effect that created the universe must have had a cause
5. the first cause had no cause before it.
6. the first cause is primordial.

Put simply, the whatever caused the universe, or set in motion the series of causes and effects that led to the creation of the universe, by virtue of being the first, must have had no cause. to deny this places a timeline in a state of infinite regression that makes no mathematical or logical sense. This first cause, whatever it may be is what we call God. While this does not prove any specific religion, nor does it prove in itself intelligent design, it does provide evidence for a primordial force that when coupled with my previous arguments strongly supports the existence of a creator.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 20cwells 3 years ago
Lol he uses Occam's razor and is a christian.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Sorry about that. My fault. - Reasons for accepting atheism
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
tp:// - Reasons for accepting atheism - Bill Maher - Idiots must stop claiming atheism is a religion - Atheism a religion? - The case for Atheism (Richard Carrier) - The Gospel According to Carrier - A believers guide to Atheism in 9 minutes - Is Atheism a Dogmatic Religion?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Burden of Proof - Testing for god

Tracie Harris "When somebody tells me that they believe a thing, they are telling me that they have assets that this as true. So they have examined this and they have come to the conclusion that it does align with reality. My problem with god exists is I don"t know what reality I"m examining."
Caller: "Yeah the one you live in."
Tracie: " What god are we examining here? And how are we examining it?"
Caller: "Your"re looking for a definition of god."
Tracie: "No I"m looking for the god in reality that corresponds to the god that you are talking about."
Caller: "The god I am talking about is the god of the bible."
Tracie: "OK but in reality the bible is talking about a god. I"m saying where is that god so I can set these bible"s claims, so I can set your claim, so I can set whatever claim about god. I---have---to---see---god to see if it aligns with the claim. Where do I do that?"
Caller: "How do I know he exists?"
Tracie" THAT WOULD BE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SHOW!!!" - World must have a creator - How do you know god isn't real?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Wow, one "astrophysicist from Upsala University in Sweden". And what happens to be his name? What's the website where I can look him up? Regardless, that's really intelligent of you to take up one man's word when it most certainly would NEVER be the basis of any scientific community. Your debating skills SUCK. You are truly a 0 person, worthless at this. Not only do you know NOTHING about science, namely astrophysics, but your fricken god, religion and bible as well. GOODBYE. You had your chance. You blew it. Its is so so so easy to see why you have no genuine friends or loved ones. Keep up the good work. I guess you want to remain alone for your entire life.
Let that be a lesson to you that when you get into a debate/ argument with someone to back up what you say with rock solid evidence otherwise you have no business being in that debate/ argument otherwise you WILL have no friends or loved ones and wah lah, you don't. Duh. NOBODY in their right mind in going to believe a word you say. Period. This is a lesson you will learn in college should you ---ever--- get that far. And if you pull that crap on your teachers = instant F and rightly so. I guess you want to be alone for the rest of your life. You don't even have to work at it. I'm done.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
No moron. I didn't "give up". Oh oh yeah. I remember now. I didn't give up to a loser teeny bopper like you who doesn't know his bible at all and instead had to flat out invent excuses, just like nearly every single christian here...
Should we kill?
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
For a discussion of the defense that the Commandments prohibit only murder, see "Murder, He Wrote", chapter 27 (Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist).
Duh that's a contradiction. But nah your silly pity mind didn't see it as such. But sorry only to the ab-so-lu-ty stupid and completely inept, like you, you didn't see it as such. And I only communicate with those that are intelligent and educated beyond a few posts.
I gave you three strikes and you were OUT and then some to really rub it in because you know 0 about your bible and yet you pretend that you do. So you invent excuses, which is fraudulent, fake and s--t in which NOBODY of merit will agree with you on.
So sure, call it in your mind, "me giving up. Who cares what
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
the figure came from an astrophysicist from Upsala University in Sweden. Furthermore, it's becoming increasingly evident you don't know how probability works because your second point makes zero mathematical sense.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
"Mathematicians have come to the conclusion that the earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion oddity." Really? Where do you get that figure from? Because um no they most certainly don't because there's nothing that they can get a correct analysis to compare it to. Even so, your god would still lose because that still 1 in 700 quintillion, whereas your god is only one. So that's essentially 0. But no granny farts are needed here, as the James Webb telescope which is scheduled to launch in may of 2020 may solve all of that. And you know what its going to look for? Its not going to look for god emissions, its going to look for Gaia Mother Earth emissions. Now you look up what Gaia Mother Earth is because you don't have the faintest clue. Wow. You can also watch the bran new spanking show from National Geographic called "One Strange Rock" to gain a new perspective. The Earth is one big living functioning organism. And it doesn't need your god to help it along. Man most certainly doesn't need nor require your unproved god either. Especially considering the fact that YOUR god truly hates children and knowingly causes their pain and suffering. Yeah god doesn't exist. Its the mere belief in him that creates this. 9-11, MT 10:37, MT 2:16, JG 21:10, 2 SAM 12:11-14 which is truly sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16, 2 KS 15:16, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, EX 12: 29-30, IS 13: 15-18, MT 2:16, (EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4, MT 10:21), JG 11: 30-33, PS 137: 8-9, 2 KS 6: 28-29, DT 21: 18-21, DT 32:25, DT 2: 32-34, DT 3: 3-6, JG 19: 24-29, EX 12:29, 2 HS 2: 23-24, LV 26:29, JM 11: 22-23, JM 19: 7-9, JM 51: 22-26, 2 KS 8: 9-15,LM 2: 20-22, RV 2: 18-23
Now here's you... "I'm an idiot, when I don't know something and I don't have the foggiest idea for truth and or for any answer as to what the answer could possibly be, I say 'Ah ha POOF therefore god." That's a fallacy of ignorance and a true lack of education.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
aside from the fact that nothing you just said is more than one degree past coherence, it doesn't disprove my point. as I recall, when you went up against this argument you gave up in frustration. If you have any real arguments I'd love to hear them.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@passwordstipulationssuck - Oh really? Um no. That math is completely false considering the fact that no life on any planet has yet been discovered. So scientists say "I don't know". There could well be life on Triton or life on Titan. And it is now assumed that every single star has planets which was not assumed by Sagan when he was breathing. Even so he is one hell of a better predicted (prophesied you might say in your language because none of the bible's prophesies have come true whereas Sagan's have) ... virtually nothing was known about Saturn's moon Titan before his death except that it had a think orangy haze. He accurately predicted that there would be lakes of liquid methane. And when in 2005 when the Cassini probe arrived, he was proven right. Now how in the f--k could he have possibly known that? Also on Mars he also predicted that there would be dust devils and again there was virtually nothing known about the planet. Your god is a super cheap cigar in comparison, and one of terror who hates children who in which nobody has even proved to even exists. But we know planets around stars exists. And considering the fact that there are an estimated 125 billion galaxies by Stephen Hawking which may have a dramatic rising as some scientists now believe that there's an estimated sextillion stars in this universe, that really puts a dampening field on everything you've stated. And it might help if you would do a little bit of research for a change rather than foamimg at the maw. Here's what you don't get. Scientists will ALWAYS say "I don't know" especially in search for life on other planets, because they don't know because none has been found. But your christianity cannot say "I don't know" because those are true terrorist words to your god because dare he be imperfect? Pathetic. And it is far worse for you because there is only "one" god, in which case there isn't one according to your bible, but man has discovered thousand of planets. You lose.
This debate has 4 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.