The Instigator
Mariodude34500
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
billsands
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does God Exist?

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: 3/9/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 120719
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Mariodude34500

Con

My opponent should argue for the existence of a god. I will argue against the existence of one from the prospective of an agnostic atheist. Note: As my opponent will be making a positive claim that god does exist the burden of proof (BOP) will be on them.
billsands

Pro

so like if there is no god explain the big bang to my satisfaction? Where did that singularity come from?
Debate Round No. 1
Mariodude34500

Con

Well ok. The cliffnotes version of the big bang is that at one point about 14 billion years ago or so. The universe expanded from a high intensity and high density state and expanded rapidly. We believe this to be the case because" If the observed conditions of our universe are extrapolated backwards in time using the known laws of physics, The prediction is that just before a period of very high density there was a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang" and according to the prevailing scientific models the universe would have once been at one infinity dense point. Where did this singularity come from? We don't know currently. Science is trying to figure this out but at the moment we aren't sure. There are many theories and hopefully one day we can learn the answer.

Now I pretty much know what your argument is and that's the god of the gaps argument. The argument being that because we don't know exactly where the singularity came from or how the universe started that it must have been god. There's two major problems with this argument.

1. That argument can be used for literally anything. Using that same logic i can say a flying all power coke can created the universe and it's just as valid as saying god must have done it.

2. The common argument that your using is that the universe is complex so it must have been created. But then you have to answer the question of where did god come from. If something complex like the universe has to be designed then god having created the universe must be more complex then the universe so you have to answer who created god? And who created the creator of god? And who created the creator of the creator of god and so on forever.

So if you could answer the pardox of who created god and provide some other evidence for him that'd be good.
billsands

Pro

Where did that singularity come from? , Answer that, Mr god of the gaps. . My point is that there will ALWAYS BE GAPS there are some things science will never be able to explain, Meaning there might well be a god, It seems absurd to my that everything we have in reality is some cosmic accident, You really believe that?
Debate Round No. 2
Mariodude34500

Con

Once again we don't yet know where the singularity came from. Scientists are working on that hopefully one day we'll know. And your correct when you say there will likely always be things science can't explain but to then say because science can't explain everything there for god exists is literally the god of the gaps argument you just made fun of me for mentioning. It's ironic that you mock me for mentioning god of the gaps and then one sentence later use that exact argument. Your point that science can't prove everything so god may exist is a completely useless argument because once again you can argue for literally anything with that logic. How do you know a all powerful Coke can doesn't exist, Or that three headed unicorns don't exist. You don't. They may exist and so may god but there is no proof for any of those things so as a skeptic i reject all of those ideas until I see proof they are real. As far as the universe being a "accident" well accident implies the universe meant to do something and the universe didn't mean to do anything it just did. The phrase your looking for is random chance and sure the universe formed how it did through random chance within the universal laws. If your point is that things ending up exactly how they are today is very unlikely your correct. However go back far enough and anything is very unlikely to happen. Your existing if you go back 1, 000 years is statically hugely unlikely. That for all those generations all your ancestors happened to meet each and happened to have sex and happened to give birth to a baby who happened to survive long enough to reproduce in their turn. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it was meant to be. It just means that's how it turned out and if something was different the results would have been different. You wouldn't be alive today and the universe would be different today

Last thing i'll say is that the biggest difference between science and religion is that when science doesn't know the answer to questions it says " we don't know lets try to find out" when religion doesn't know it just says "well it must have been god"
billsands

Pro

billsands forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mariodude34500

Con

Well as my opponent forfeited this round i don't really have anything to say. Hopefully my opponent will attempt to provide some evidence for god in the next round
billsands

Pro

To say this is all an accident a random accident, Thats hard for people like me to wrap my head around, There has to be a higher power of some sort i would postulate
Debate Round No. 4
Mariodude34500

Con

that's not a arguement. That you have a hard time understanding it doesn't make it not true. I have a hard time understanding calculus doesn't make it not true
billsands

Pro

The creation of the universe is more complex than calculus, Its the big question no one can answer isnt it?
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
Evolve is just another word for "change". Everything "changes". What the theory of Evolution postulates is that species changed into other species, Correct?

"Evolution" is simply stating that a species (i. E. A chimp or primate) evolved (changed) into a higher life form. There is no evidence that this took place.

In a billion years, People may uncover remnants of a Jeep tire and remnants of a Rolex watch. . . . They look similar (both are round). . . And people may surmise that Watches "evolved" from tires. . . .
Posted by croweupc 3 years ago
croweupc
About the Big Bang Theory:
Theory is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, Especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "

Unlike the Theory of Evolution, Or the Theory of Gravity, The Universe is first too big to fully understand and secondly we only have one Universe to study. Unlike the fossil record which gives us massive amounts of data to corroborate the Theory of Evolution, We have no other Universes to study. We observe an expanding Universe, The Big Bang is meant only to help explain it.

The fact: expanding Universe
Theory: Big Bang

The fact: living organisms evolve
Theory: Evolution

Theories are not facts, But are meant to explain facts about reality. The more corroborating evidence we have for a theory, The more sound the theory is.
Posted by croweupc 3 years ago
croweupc
Most honest
Posted by croweupc 3 years ago
croweupc
@Mario
My bad!
I miss understood what you were saying.

By the way, Billsands said the must honest statement yet in round 4. Were you ever a believer? If so, You should know what he is talking about. Trust me, I can relate. If not, This is one of the many appeals of Christianity. It gives you a lot of answers, But no real explanation.
Posted by Mariodude34500 3 years ago
Mariodude34500
@croweupc. I was saying i'd argue against the arguments my opponent presents. Obviously it would be impossible to prove there is no god since god is a non falsifiable hypothesis. I had expected my opponent to try and present actual evidence for god not just pull a but what about what you think. When he presents actual evidence and not just god of the gaps i'll argue against that
Posted by croweupc 3 years ago
croweupc
@Mariodude
Just an observation:
How can you argue against a god/gods if you are agnostic?

An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in god but makes no claim on the existence of a god/gods.

You made a positive claim when you said you would argue against the proposition.

You can most certainly argue against certain models of god. An all good, Benevolent god would be a perfect example to refute.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
God requires many properties and complexities such as consciousness, Thought, Personality, Creative drive, Love, An internal logic ordering its thoughts so that it can think coherently and rationally, Memory, Etc: All of these properties must have been derived from somewhere. It turns out that God is a vastly more complicated thing than the Big Bang and the fundamental laws of the Universe.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@billsands, God doesn't explain the big bang any better than science, Because once you add god, You have to explain how the god got there. Now if you just say that god is eternal, Then you have another problem. Because if we can say that god is eternal, Then it becomes more logical to just say that the universe is eternal, Because then we have a simpler model then the god model. God is an all purpose explanation, So it always looks good for any argument, But the problem is that there are simpler explanations that are better than God. So it's a violation of logic to assert God ad hoc.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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