The Instigator
Daring_Blasphemer
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points

CON "I don't know" vs PRO "God did it"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,990 times Debate No: 118373
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (58)
Votes (0)

 

Daring_Blasphemer

Con

'God did it' is the end of inquiry. This is the position of believers who reject science while living in a science driven world. This is a position of willful ignorance that leads to the end of progress.

'I don't know' is the beginning of science. Exploration of the world around us has lead to the betterment of society in almost every measurable way. "I don't know' is the rational answer. It is OK not to know, That is the only way we will learn anything new.

Pro

So you don't creationists are science oriented. Hopefully your opinion should change after you read this.

The first thing atheists tell me when I say that God exists is that no one can prove it. This is partially correct because we cannot see physical signs of him. That does not mean however that there aren't good arguments for him. I will give a few of them here.
The first is the argument from design. When you look at the world around us, You see the complexity of it. Take DNA. It contains the amount of information equivalent to 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica's put together. Every life form on this earth has them. Without a God, In the equation, Then it all must have come from nothing. But if it takes a very smart person-years to put together even one, Then wouldn't there have to be an even more intelligent person to put together 1000 sets of encyclopedia's in the first one-celled animal. Or did it all just come together from an explosion, Also known as the big bang? If so, That is an awful lot to be arranged perfectly from a single explosion. As a matter of fact here are some probabilities of it coming together from actual material.
1. The chance of life forming from non-life is 1 in 10 to the 40, 000th power. That is 10 with 40, 000 zeros after it
Source: https://www. Scienceforums. Net/
Source: www. Ideacenter. Org/contentmgr/showdetails. Php/id/740

2. The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion
Source: https://blogs. Plos. Org/

3. The chance of a simple protein coming from dead matter is 1 in 1. 28 with 10, 175 zeros after it
Source: http://www. Creationstudies. Org/

4. The chance of the earth by itself coming into existence from nothing is 1 in 700 quintillion
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

5. "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, Knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway"
Even in a billion years, That's never going to happen
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

Another thing about evolution. What about mutualism? Mutualism, Is a relationship between two organisms where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible if DNA is that complicated, Can you even imagine the rest of the world? How can it be chance? How can it all come from an explosion that I don't even believe to be possible. Nothing cannot produce something so I don't see how this explosion could have occurred. This world calls for an intelligent designer, Not chance.
My second argument is the argument from motion. According to Isaac Newton's first law of motion everything that is in motion will stay in motion until acted on by another force. At the same time, Nothing will ever be in motion until acted on by another force. In other words if anything is in motion, There must be a force that causes it to do so. This law completely contradicts the idea that there is no God. You see, Everything in this world is in motion. Because nothing can set itself in motion, There must be an outside force that is the result of all motion today. Because God is all powerful he can do anything and therefore does not need to be set in motion and is the only thing that can be the root cause of all motion today. Otherwise, Isaac Newton is wrong.
My third argument. How does matter arise to make this whole scenario possible in the first place? The big bang is bound by some very important scientific laws. The law of conservation of energy, The law of conservation of mass, The law of biogenesis, And Newton's first law of motion. All 4 of these scientific laws and the big bang cannot be true at the same time because they are contradictory. The Big bang is believed to be the result of all energy and mass but the law of conservation of mass says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. You believe in the big bang theory but the Big bang itself is a theory and according to the scientific method, A scientific law has so much more credibility then a theory. So, In this case, In order to believe in the big bang theory, You are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data while ignoring the MOST reliable data. Not good scientific practice.
My third argument is the cosmological argument. Here is what it states:
P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence
P2 Because the universe exists, It must have a cause of existence
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force
P4 That outside force is God
P5 God created the universe
C God exists
I will probably get lots of questions on this particular argument which I will answer in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Daring_Blasphemer

Con

Thank you for taking the time to post an argument.
Thank you also for proving my point with ironic precision.
Your first argument: 'The argument from design' starts with 'just look around' and jumps straight into 'DNA is to complicated, Therefore God did it. ' This argument has been made for centuries and for centuries about everything from disease to the existence of the atom and it has been pushed back over and over. The more we learn the smaller God gets, The less likely his existence. When we understand DNA better over the next few years we will undoubtedly find new horizons to reach for and your ever shrinking God will be shoehorned into this tinier home. When people built automobiles and discussed the possibility of travel at 60 MPH there were discussions of this being too fast for the flesh on our faces to withstand. Our common sense is common ignorance mislabeled. The only science creationists have, They have stolen from actual science and bent it to fit their cause.
Your second argument (Evolution? ) is not labeled as such but I am glad to point out your fallacy. Your evolution argument is a straw man. Learning the actual evolution of these two fish would probably take you a few hours, But why bother when you can just make it up (or more likely take it from some apologist web site) and say 'see how silly that is? ' God did it! As you have presented it, Yes it is a silly idea, Luckily your post has NOTHING to do with evolution.
Your third argument (labeled as the second) could not prove more clearly that YOU are incapable of saying "I don't know".
Newtons laws of physics were AMAZING for their day. Their day passed with Einstein. This is another straw man. It is in fact, Almost too embarrassing to respond to. I hope you will take this light rebuke and not push this nonsense again.
Your Fourth argument (labeled as the first third) is just a word salad with some sciencey words thrown it. The Big Bang is by definition something we do not know. The best ideas we have for the beginning of the universe are based of probabilities since we can only study it from where and when we are now. We don't know does not equal GOD DID IT. '
Your fifth arguement (labeled as the second third) is the Kalam Cosmological Argument with some William Lang Craig tacked on the end. Better men than me have already tackled this nonsense again and again.
P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence.
(How do you know this to be true? I do not know this and I argue no one does. )
P2 Because the universe exists, It must have a cause of existence. (See P1)
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force. (No one claims something from nothing except theists when they are building their staw men)
P4 That outside force is God. (Really? You have clumsily gotten only to 'something', Then you are just positing God. )
How do you know the outside force is not two mice using the Earth as a computer to determine the question of life, The universe and everything? There is not less proof for this assertion than there is for yours.

Your hope that I would find you scientific, I must assert, Is at this point headed for the rocks with no lights and a heavy fog.

You could not have realized the point of the post any more beautifully. The arrogance of the assumptions you make in a world where the refutations of your arguments are at your fingertips is astounding. Have you really never heard these refuted before? Do you care what is or is not true?

Pro

All I really have to say here is that you have presented a Prima Facie. You're telling me that God does not exist without backing it up, And then you don't give me a plausible alternative to how the universe was created. Your simply saying "I don't know. " So if you don't know then why are you so certain that the answer isn't God? If all of these arguments point towards God, What is keeping you from wanting to look at the evidence?

That being said, Technically I could just stop there, But I won't. I will go over each of my points and show why a God is essential to the existence of the earth.

You start out by saying that we will find new horizons that explain things like DNA and how life came from non-life. Actually it is kind of the other way around. Atheists continue to push back dis-proven scientific theories that support their case. Take spontaneous generation for example. The latest version of it is abiogenesis and there is a reason it continues to survive for so many years. Here's how it all started. First someone made an observation. They saw that maggots appeared on meat after a few days. Aristotle proposed the hypothesis that living maggots formed form non-living meat. As we all know this isn't true and was dis-proven as someone performed an experiment that shoed that maggots just fly on the meat, Not because they are formed from it. When scientists who believed in spontaneous generation saw this, They simply would not believe it. They said "ok well maybe maggots can't spontaneously generate, But micro-organisms can" At that time we didn't have much knowledge of the world of microorganisms so it took us a while to dis-prove the belief that microorganisms can spontaneously generate. But when Louis Pasteur showed that even Microorganisms can't spontaneously generate, People pushed it back further to an area that we were rather ignorant about. They said that just because microorganisms can't spontaneously generate, Some (unknown) simple life form can spontaneously generate from some (unknown) mixture of chemicals at some (unknown) point in time. The fact that we literally know nothing about these things keeps us from dis-proving their "theory. "

Source: Exploring Creation with Biology textbook

Now to my second rebuttal point. You said that my argument on mutualism had nothing to do with evolution. Are you kidding? It has everything to do with evolution. After all, What is evolution all about? Species evolving BENEFICIAL traits in order to survive. Well in this case, Both the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse managed to develop a beneficial mutualistic relationship. In order for this to happen, According to evolution, Is for both of them to evolve beneficial traits SIMULTANEOUSLY for the relationship to begin. As I have specified in my first argument believing all this happened by chance is completely absurd and only points to a higher power, Meaning God, That specifically designed each and everything thing on this earth.

Now to the Cosmological Argument.

P1 Everything that exists has a cause of existence.
Explanation: most people actually agree with this. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Right? It didn't just cause itself. I did not just decide that I was going to form nothing. I had a cause. My parents were that cause. Same with a rock. Rocks have a cause. They can come to exist from volcanic eruptions or when magma hardens. That's a cause.
P2 The universe exists and thus, Must have a cause. See P1
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force.
Explanation: If you don't believe that nothing came from something then why does this entire universe exist? If God does not exist then there had to be once nothing. There couldn't always be something because everything has a cause. In addition, There is a whole lot of evidence that the universe had a beginning, Whether that was God or something else.
P4 That outside force is God
Explanation: I have now gotten to the point where I have proven that everything finite has a cause. So nothing finite can be the result of the universe so maybe something infinite, Meaning God is the result of the universe. After all, God is the only thing that is infinite.
P5 It thus follows that God created the universe.
P5 God exists

The rest of your arguments are simply a bunch of bare claims with no evidence to back them up. For example, You didn't even mention my argument from motion proving God, You just laughed it off and said that it was too stupid to address. You just can't do that in debate. You have to address all arguments supporting ones case no matter how bad they are. After all, Not everyone has the same opinion you do.

Questions for Con:

1. Since you yourself said you don't know how the universe came to exist, What makes you so sure it isn't God?

2. Would you agree that it is possible that there is a God? If so, Then what is keeping you from wanting to look at the evidence I have provided?

3. Is it more probable that a God exists, Or that all of these ridiculous probabilities came to happen in sequence resulting in this universe with such complexity?

4. What has more credibility? A theory, Or 4 scientific laws? If the big bang is a theory that contradicts 4 scientific laws, Which is true?

5. Do you believe that the universe had a beginning? If so, Then is it more believable that an Omnicient, Omnipotent, Intelligent designer created it, Or that it miraculously came from nothing?
Debate Round No. 2
Daring_Blasphemer

Con

It is very cute the way you are using big boy debate words! Mine is not a Prima Facie argument. I have not claimed "There is not God". You are projecting.

I never mentioned life coming from non-life. The reason I never mentioned it is because I am not a biologist and I don"t know how life came about and neither do you.

Your maggot story is a beautiful portrayal of how science works"twisted to attempt to fit your narrative. Abiogenesis is not a Theory. It is a hypothesis. We have continued to learn more and more about how life starts by study. The more we study, The more questions we have. The more questions we answer the more our knowledge moves forward. <"Science!

I did not say mutualism is not evolution. I said YOUR argument about how their relationship came about is NOT evolution. I also said that it would only take you a few hours to study the evolution if these fish and then your post would not be complete ignorant babble.

Now to the Cosmological Argument. I am no Philosopher but I will try"

P1 Everything that exists has a cause of existence.
Explanation: For my idea of God to be true, I need this to be true so I shall simply assert it without evidence.
P2 The universe exists and thus, Must have a cause.
Explanation: See P1
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force.
Explanation: The only way to explain how a God could exist in a universe where everything must have a cause is if I place God outside my construct. Genius.
P4 That outside force is God
Explanation: WOW! POOF God. Who could have seen that twist coming?
P5 It thus follows that God created the universe.
Flawless! (outside all the flaws. )

>>The rest of your arguments are simply a bunch of bare claims with no evidence to back them up. For example, You didn't even mention my argument from motion proving God, You just laughed it off and said that it was too stupid<<

Two things about this gem of a paragraph:
1. I make no arguments after I shredded your Cosmological double speak.
2. Your example is not an argument without evidence, It is a complaint that I ignored your Argument from Motion. LOL!

Arrogant Questions for Con:

1. Since you yourself said you don't know how the universe came to exist, What makes you so sure it isn't God?
I am not sure. I have not claimed to be so. I don"t know.

2. Would you agree that it is possible that there is a God? If so, Then what is keeping you from wanting to look at the evidence I have provided?
I do not know if a God is possible. You presented NO evidence. Do you know what that word means?

3. Is it more probable that a God exists, Or that all of these ridiculous probabilities came to happen in sequence resulting in this universe with such complexity?
How do YOU measure the probability of something outside the universe? Outside the natural world?

4. What has more credibility? A theory, Or 4 scientific laws? If the big bang is a theory that contradicts 4 scientific laws, Which is true?
If you can prove the Big Bang is not how it happened, You can win the nobel Prize. I do not see the evidence you seem to, But I am not an astro physicist.

5. Do you believe that the universe had a beginning? If so, Then is it more believable that an Omnicient, Omnipotent, Intelligent designer created it, Or that it miraculously came from nothing? I do not know how the universe began and neither do you. I am just not so arrogant as to assert that I am a philosophy, Biology and astrophysics expert to prove my point.

I don"t know and neither do you.

Pro

I am going to take a step back from all the minutia of this round and simply look at the debate title. "I don't know" vs "God did it. " If it is true that my opponent doesn't know the origin of the universe, Then he can't tell you that God did not create it. He asserts in the comments section that he doesn't believe in God yet he is taking the position of "I don't know. " Is this not a contradiction? He is claiming not to know the origin of the universe yet making a bare claim that it isn't God. In addition, He doesn't give you a plausible alternative to how the universe came to exist. That is a Prima Facie and they are invalid every single time.

Now let's look at his arguments and what they are all trying to tell you.

My opponent starts off by saying that abiogenesis is not a theory, It is a hypothesis. Great! It just how ridiculous it is for the majority of people to believe something that hasn't even been tested with much scientific data.

My opponents only contention regarding mutualism is that my argument about the wrasse and sweetlips relationship coming about is not evolution. He gives you no link to this argument and even if it were true, He only pushes the question back further. How did the relationship begin otherwise? He said that if you were to spend a few hours studying these species relationship you would figure out how it came about. But again this is simply not true. Otherwise, Mutualism would not be such a big problem to evolutionists today.

My opponents arguments concerning this topic are mostly an attempt to make creationists look foolish.

P1 Everything that exists has a cause of existence.
Explanation: I never asserted it without evidence. I gave clear examples of this and which you have yet to disprove.
P2 The universe exists, And thus must have a cause
Explanation: See P1
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force.
Explanation: Never in this entire debate have you claimed something can come from nothing. You rather asked me can God come from nothing. To this question I will use the following reasoning

p1 everything that has a beginning has a cause
p2 the universe had a beginning
C the universe had a cause

If you ask the question "who created God" you assume p2. That is that God had a beginning. However God is infinite and had no beginning and thus, Did not need a cause. In addition, Einstein's theory of relativity demonstrates that time is linked to matter and space. So time had a beginning and thus had a cause. God, By definition is the creator of the universe and thus, Is the creator of time. God is not bound by his own creation. He isn't bound by time.

https://www. Christiancourier. Com/articles/673-who-made-god

P4 That outside force is God
Explanation: Because I have proven throughout this debate that nothing finite can be the cause of the universe so thus, You have to look to something infinite. The only thing that is infinite is God.
P5 God created the universe
P6 God exists

The other competing explanation for the origin of the universe is the big bang theory. As I said in round 1, There are 4 scientific laws contradict the big bang theory. If you were to believe the big bang theory, 4 scientific laws would have to be false. That doesn't make sense and when something doesn't make sense, It probably isn't true.

I have not claimed to be an astro-physicist expert, A biology expert, And a philosophy expert. I have claimed that the fundamentals of these things point to God.

I want to end by saying that everyone who puts their faith in science will be disappointed. Science is finite and will fail us. Everything in this life will.
Debate Round No. 3
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 51 through 58 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
But you know what Jack? Why don't i give you another chance to prove your not an intellectual dimwit.

Your probability argument is wrong because the universe is not governed completely by chance, Saying the chance of a protein chain of 100 amino acids forming by chance is 1 in "insert bull**** value" is like if i took a ball and said "what is the probability that this ball will fall to my subjective down rather then any other direction in 3D space" the chances of the ball doing so would be pretty much none, But then i let go of the ball, It falls down, Over and over and over, Why is this? The odds are against this outcome from pretty much ever happening, The answer is because the universe isn't just dominated by profitability, There are laws and forces that demand certain things behave in certain ways, Gravity dictates that this ball will fall down whether or not probability is on its side, The same is true when it comes to chemistry, Chemicals will only bond and break in certain ways under specific criteria because they are governed by the electromagnetic force rather then probability, You can plug any probability you want with any configuration you want and it will all be equally improbable, But it happens anyway, Interesting isn't it? Saying that the chance of a single cell originating by chance is 1 in "insert bull**** value" is like if held a bag full of charcoal and said the chances of diamonds forming after i shake this bag is 1 in "insert bull**** value" their-by diamonds originating from natural cause is mathematically impossible, But then you take into account its not just probability but also chemistry and physics and you add some pressure and time, And guess what? DIAMONDS. This is a greatly simplified version of my rebuttal, Now do the following.
*Rebuttal it without changing the subject
*Rebuttal it without using bad sources
*Rebuttal it without making excuses not too
*Rebuttal it by actually rebuttaling it
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
That is your opinion
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
Your rebuttals were not satisfactory and just plain out wrong, And half of them you didn't even give a rebuttal to, You just moved onto a different question.

Really jack? Thats not how it works, By the same logic i can say the flat earth has not been debunked because flat earthers rebuttled the spherical earth claims.

Yous see Jack what YOU need to understand is that there is something called actauly rebuttling an argument successfully, And just plain out giving a failed rebuttal, You gave failed rebuttals that were no where close to disproving the overwhelming evidence i presented before you in my claims, As i said it seems only you don't understand why you are wrong.

You failed to counter my points over and over, And that is if you responded at all.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Im intelligent, Your negations were not satisfactory. What you have to understand is that there is such a thing as a counter argument. I countered your rebuttal points so that means that the arguments are not debunked.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
I would more then happily debate jack on these topics and destroy him fantastically, Yet i know the effort he will apply will be minimal at best, If he even finishes it at all.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
This is just getting cringe worthy, Jack has a history of reusing bad and debunked arguments, But the probability argument? EVEN FOR AMINO ACID CHAINS even after i debunked it dozens of times and explained it SPECIFICALLY TO JACK why the probability argument is bullcrap yet he remains willingly ignorant to the reality of what actauly exists.

Its quite obvious jack isn't here to debate, If he was he would learn from his mistakes and correct them accordingly, But he doesn't, Its like explaining to a child why the sun isn't a living thing but the child continues to postulate the sun is a living thing even though this is demonstrably wrong, And the only person who doesn't understand why is the child, This situation is near identical to jack and his arguments and the people who correct him over and over.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
In my argument, I put "if DNA is that complicated" I meant to put, "if mutualism is that complicated"
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
May I ask what the point of this debate is?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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