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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Shrekislovenlife has forfeited round #5.
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: 8/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 94572
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I believe in The Big Bang Theory, which if you think about it, it's more logical. Some questions:
Do you know the paradox "If god could do anything, could he make a rock he couldn't hold?" Doesn't that prove the concept of god is impossible?
If mass couldn't just appear out of nowhere, then where did god come from?
Ten actually thought out and not dumb reasons why homosexuality is wrong? (Including bi)
How does christianity link with science? Or does it fully contradict it? Believe it or not, scientists are smart.


1) The Big Bang Theory

You mentioned that it's more logical. What are you comparing it against?

Ultimately, it's fine to believe in the Big Bang Theory. It is the prevailing scientific model being used at the moment to trace the universe's history. However, there are many limitations to the model. It causes a variety of inconsistencies and contradictions that are currently not resolved (Baryon asymmetry, dark energy, dark matter, the horizon problem, flatness problem, etc). No layman would fault you for believing in the Big Bang. However, there are many alternative scientific explanations and models, each with various merits, that have uses in predicting certain cosmological features. As a scientist, I would urge you to withhold belief as much as possible to that which we actually know, and to consider the Big Bang cosmological theory for what it is - a very useful model with powerful prediction capabilities in many areas, but also limited and imperfect, that represents the state of the art of our scientific cosmological knowledge. There's a giant gap between that and what is true (in the sense of certainty).

2) God and omnipotence paradoxes

There are several schools of thought here. The first is that the definition of omnipotence is limited such that "God can do anything according to his nature." Things that are inherently contradictory, God cannot do. God cannot make 1+1=0, nor create a rock greater than himself, because in doing so he would have already had to be greater than the rock.

Another school of thought is that the gap here has to do with our language, and our limited sense of ability and doing, and the inherent complexity of omnipotence. We're simply incapable of examining omnipotence closely enough to make the claims we're making about what must be in regards to a being with some degree of absolute universal power.

3) God and mass

This isn't a great debate area, because we don't have good scientific answers for why any mass or energy exists. Scientific theories begin to get fuzzy as we get very close to the moment of the Big Bang, and then, when we hit the moment of the Big Bang and continue to go backwards, there are many, many diverging ideas. Moreover, it's generally viewed that if God exists, the existence is metaphysical (not limited to the boundaries of the known universe, including mass, energy, space, time, etc).

4) Is homosexuality wrong?

This depends on how you define what it means to be wrong. Some people use the Bible as a justification of a morality system in which homosexuality is explicitly wrong. It's important to note that there isn't a scientific explanation for this, because doesn't attempt deal with morality. So, if your moral system doesn't come from a text that explicitly says homosexuality is wrong, it's difficult to see how one would come to this conclusion.

5) How does Christianity link with science? Is it contradictory? Are scientists smart?

First, let's address whether or not scientists are smart. Yes, scientists are smart. There we go.

Next, let's dive into the relationship between Christianity and science. There's a lot of interesting history. Throughout most of western history, all of the educated people were religious scholars, and therefore they were also conducting all of the science. The Catholic Church has historically been a very powerful institution, and it's not surprising that they have produced many schools, universities, hospitals, and scientists throughout history, with extremely notable examples in the Middle Ages. There are a few spectacular historical instances of serious friction, as well. We can look at Galileo being punished for his discoveries about the heliocentric solar system. In very recent history, there has been controversy over evolution with some very literalist Christian groups. The Catholic Church's official position is that science and Christianity are complimentary. This is a pretty reasonable position. Let's examine why.

Science answers questions about the natural world - things we can observe, measure, detect. It helps us to explain a great deal about how things work, and building up that body of knowledge allows us to manipulate and engineer the world to our liking. Religion (and philosophy) don't deal with these subjects. They deal with our values, our culture, meaning, purpose, aesthetics, morality, etc. They're orthogonal to science.
Debate Round No. 1


I meant that the big bang is more logical than Christianity or any religion in general, which, logic has no flaws.
Logic originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion.
(See source for more information:
Christianity is based on fear?
Christianity is based on dishonesty?
Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific?
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning play J.B., Archibald MacLeish nails it when his character Nickles declares: "If God is God, he is not good; if God is good, he is not God." How can you believe in a God who would allow so much senseless evil and suffering in the world?
Why would "god", if humans existed for 100,000 years, wait 5,000 years to contact them, and only the people in the Middle East? "God" favored the Jews and would even help them fight thier neighbors. No real god would ever act in that way.


I don't want to answer a litany of new questions, but yes, you could say that science is more logical than religion. This is kind of like saying an apple is more fruity than a blanket. It's a true statement, but is it useful? Again, Christianity is a religion. Religious topics include faith-based beliefs, the nature of the divine, metaphysics, culture, etc. Generally, science asks 'How?', whereas religion and philosophy ask 'Why?' They are different questions that don't cover the same domain.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3


I don't think it's in the spirit of debate to just post links to other people's arguments about why Christianity is wrong, but to each his own.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.