The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
The Contender
Apophis66
Con (against)

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Apophis66 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 109971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Pro

Before beginning this debate, I would like to ask that anyone willing to partake in this argument would be respectful of anyone else's beliefs. It is possible to disagree with someone whilst still showing them respect, and it won't be tolerated for anyone to use hatred and name-calling as their argument.

My personal belief of course is that God does exist. My personal experiences, and of course my background of going to church, supports that. Although many may believe that since I grew up in a Christian family I am forced to believe what I believe, that is not the case. For example, my step-father is borderline RADICAL Republican, but I am more moderate-democrat. I make my own opinions, observations, and decisions based upon my own experience and research, just as anyone should. If you have reasonable points to bring up into this argument, I would love to hear them.
Apophis66

Con

I was raised in a Mormon household and it became evident to me early on that this religion was a sham. When I started learning more about the big bang and evolution I began to realize that there really was less and less of a need for a God and there wasn't any real evidence God exists. The God of the ancient Hebrews doesn't have any more good evidence than any other myth from other societies so why do we regard them as obviously myths but not the Hebrew one? Also there are a lot of logical problems with the bible and the biblical God just like I found with Mormonism.

I began to realize that religion and God are just a bunch of myths people made up to explain the unexplained and that it is science and reason that really explains things. Naturalism can explain complexity through evolution processes and probability making unlikely things probable if they are tried enough times. Now science has explained so much about humanity, life, and the universe and while there are still a lot more unknowns we shouldn't rely on myths to explain them.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

"I was raised in a Mormon household and it became evident to me early on that this religion was a sham. When I started learning more about the big bang and evolution I began to realize that there really was less and less of a need for a God and there wasn't any real evidence God exists."

I would like to point out that although it is a common argument that just because we are born into a religious family doesn't mean we are naturally religious, and I am glad you made that point. I would like to ask this: What began the falter in your faith during this period of time where you learned about these theories such as the big bang and evolution? I would like to point out that these theories are taught in schools, and despite textbooks and teachers making it sound easy to understand and they intention to make it sound like the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, have you done your own research or have had any of your own personal experiences that would prove these theories to be true? One point I often make is that growing up in an education system that pounds these theories into our heads as the truth is no different that growing up in a religious environment.

"The God of the ancient Hebrews doesn't have any more good evidence than any other myth from other societies so why do we regard them as obviously myths but not the Hebrew one? Also there are a lot of logical problems with the bible and the biblical God just like I found with Mormonism."

By the second Hebrew in that question, I assume you meant Christian? And the point I would like to make about your claim of logical problems is this: of course there are logical problems. We are talking about an almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing being. Logic can be easily thrown out the window with the possibility of the existence of a divine being, can it not? And if not, would it not be more likely for something to have intentionally started this universe than for nothing to have exploded into everything? Nothing exploded and all of these coincidentally perfect aspects of life and physics just happened to take shape to where it could support such a complex and sophisticated human race? Personally, I believe all of those coincidences to be less likely than for this to have happened intentionally.

"I began to realize that religion and God are just a bunch of myths people made up to explain the unexplained and that it is science and reason that really explains things. Naturalism can explain complexity through evolution processes and probability making unlikely things probable if they are tried enough times. Now science has explained so much about humanity, life, and the universe and while there are still a lot more unknowns we shouldn't rely on myths to explain them."

I can understand your argument towards the likelihood of the evolutionary process, and I agree, science has explained much about humanity, life, and the universe. But maybe it is not so much as explained, as it is explored. The presence of a divine being that would establish all of the aspects of everything would insinuate that we are just exploring His creation, not explaining things that are already explained. As a Christian, I, by no means, claim that science is complete bogus or that it contains evil. Science is a valuable tool in the advancement of the human race, and I completely understand that. I often find myself thinking in terms of adaptation and evolution. But perhaps evolution was God's process of developing his human race? Perhaps the "6 days" that God created the heavens and the earth, the sun and the moon, the sea and the land, are simply symbolic? Those "6 days" could have taken place over thousands, millions, billions of years. (I would also like to point out that both of our arguments will contain "perhaps" and "maybe" because this is not a proven subject, for anyone reading along). Perhaps the way science explains the creation of the universe is true, and the processes claimed to have shaped our universe was God's method of creating it? Personally, I believe that a divine being speaking would be as dramatic as a big bang, don't you?
Apophis66

Con

What began the falter in your faith during this period of time where you learned about these theories such as the big bang and evolution?

Glad you asked. I have always been a very logical person and eventually began to see major logical flaws with Mormonism when I finally decided to stop assuming my religion was true and use critical thinking instead.

We are talking about an almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing being. Logic can be easily thrown out the window with the possibility of the existence of a divine being, can it not?

I don't see any reason why we should throw out logic for your claim but should be logically skeptical of all the other religions, political claims, and scientific claims.

would it not be more likely for something to have intentionally started this universe than for nothing to have exploded into everything? Nothing exploded and all of these coincidentally perfect aspects of life and physics just happened to take shape to where it could support such a complex and sophisticated human race?

This is a common misunderstanding of the big bang. The big bang claims that the universe expanded from a much smaller point. There is no explosion or coming from nothing. As the universe expanded the matter in it naturally clumped into stars and planets through gravity. The vast majority of planets are lifeless but since there are so many planets there was bound to be at least one which could develop life.

The theory of evolution shows how advanced things can develop with mutations that create new features and natural selection that selects the good ones. We have strong fossil and genetic evidence for evolution and the big bang and I can go into a lot more detail about the evidence. For example, we have species like Homo Erectus and many others that show a smooth evolution from apes to humans in the fossil record. It is very clear from the evidence that advanced complexity formed by natural forces and natural selection processes not blind chance or the direct hand of a designer.

In fact if advanced things means design then what is the explanation for a being advanced enough to make universes, become all-powerful and all-knowing? Doesn't God then need a God to make him and how did something as advanced as God just exist forever with no reason for why? If not and we can explain him without design then why not just save a step and explain the universe without design? If you think about it if you roll a dice enough times you will eventually get highly improbably events. In the same way, maybe with enough universes and planets we were bound to have one suitable for life and with so many combinations of forces in all parts of existence we were going to find combinations like evolution that form advanced things easily.

But perhaps evolution was God's process of developing his human race?

There is no evidence that evolution was God's process. Natural selection and mutations are forces that logically are going to happen no matter what. Mutations are just mistakes in DNA replication which are always going to happen and natural selection is the logical fact that some features are better for survival than others and that those with those features are more likely to survive. All we have evidence for is complexity being formed by a bunch of natural processes and no evidence of a designer.

Perhaps the "6 days" that God created the heavens and the earth, the sun and the moon, the sea and the land, are simply symbolic? Those "6 days" could have taken place over thousands, millions, billions of years.

Actually the bible is very clear in Genesis 1 that a morning and evening marked the beginning and end of each literal day. In addition the ordering of the days is all wrong. Genesis claims that God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day but yet light and the day/night cycle, liquid water, and plants were made before this. It also claims that birds were made along with fish before land animals but the fossil record is very clear that birds only evolved after dinosaurs had existed for hundreds of millions of years and are relatively recent.

In addition the bible also claims there was a global flood but there is no massive fossil layer of flooding around the entire planet with all forms of fossilized life inside dated to the exact same era. It is ridiculous that every single species could have fit on one ark which is much smaller than many modern ships and this is obviously a myth.

It is also completely illogical why a benevolent God like this would eternally torture people in hell because they weren't lucky enough to figure out what the right religion was, its absolutely ridiculous. If he is so obsessed with people believing in him why doesn't he come down and pay us a visit like any father would?

In fact if God is all-powerful then he would already know if we were going to make it to heaven and there is no point to testing us. Since he is all-powerful he could have made earth more like a training camp and then make humans with a good smart nature likely to do well and if some of us are failing he could come down a given us a pep talk. it makes absolutely no sense why God will end up torturing the majority of the population when he could have easily done things a lot differently. There is just no evidence for a being like this.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

Glad you asked. I have always been a very logical person and eventually began to see major logical flaws with Mormonism when I finally decided to stop assuming my religion was true and use critical thinking instead."

Fair enough, and I am not going to make an assumption and use that as an argument, but perhaps you haven't done enough research on the subject? Clearly you are well-studied, but I guess it is my job to point out the flaws in the idea of the big bang and evolution.

"I don't see any reason why we should throw out logic for your claim but should be logically skeptical of all the other religions, political claims, and scientific claims."

I agree that we should be reasonably skeptical of all aspects of our lives. But using logic, would the big bang not be a crazier belief than the possibility of a God? According to "big-bang-theory.com", with writings and studies taken from scientists such as Steven Hawking, the big bang was essentially a singularity that expanded to create an expansive and infinite universe. So how is the existence of an intentional beginning of the universe less logical than the existence of an infinite mass and infinite space? Mathematicians can't even fathom an infinite mass. And I would like to point out that one claim of evidence for the big bang was a study done in 1929, basically claiming that the movement of galaxies away from us was documented, and that explains the expansion of a singularity that creates this universe. But this test was done in 1929... a year that we didn't even understand the presence of greenhouse gases, let alone discover the movement of other galaxies. Global warming wasn't even taken as a possibility until 1950, let alone the discovery of galaxies moving away from us. I would also like to point out that evidence for the heat involved in the singularity is being argued for by the discovery of CMB, or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, despite the fact that they discovered a temperature of -454 degrees Fahrenheit, or -270 degrees Celsius. How does this extremely low temperature contribute to the extremely high temperature needed to explain a singularity? Lastly, pointing out that there is an abundance of hydrogen and helium in our universe does not exactly explain how that contributes to the big bang.

"This is a common misunderstanding of the big bang. The big bang claims that the universe expanded from a much smaller point. There is no explosion or coming from nothing. As the universe expanded the matter in it naturally clumped into stars and planets through gravity. The vast majority of planets are lifeless but since there are so many planets there was bound to be at least one which could develop life."

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I cleared that up in that last response. And sure, I do believe that there has to have been a planet with life eventually. I'll agree with you on that. But you have to understand that all of the chemicals and elements and organisms needed to develop life do not just get put together and form life. I believe life is a figurative concept. The start of life had to have been intentional; it required something or someone to put them together in perfection to create a life form. If we were to throw all the aspects required to make life into a jar and shake the jar, it wouldn't necessarily create life, no matter how long we wait.

"The theory of evolution shows how advanced things can develop with mutations that create new features and natural selection that selects the good ones. We have strong fossil and genetic evidence for evolution and the big bang and I can go into a lot more detail about the evidence. For example, we have species like Homo Erectus and many others that show a smooth evolution from apes to humans in the fossil record. It is very clear from the evidence that advanced complexity formed by natural forces and natural selection processes not blind chance or the direct hand of a designer."

In fact if advanced things means design then what is the explanation for a being advanced enough to make universes, become all-powerful and all-knowing? Doesn't God then need a God to make him and how did something as advanced as God just exist forever with no reason for why? If not and we can explain him without design then why not just save a step and explain the universe without design? If you think about it if you roll a dice enough times you will eventually get highly improbably events. In the same way, maybe with enough universes and planets we were bound to have one suitable for life and with so many combinations of forces in all parts of existence we were going to find combinations like evolution that form advanced things easily.

This is where the argument crosses into the unexplainable. This is the point where no one can develop a proven answer because it just can't be proven. It isn't for me to say why there is or isn't a God.

"There is no evidence that evolution was God's process. Natural selection and mutations are forces that logically are going to happen no matter what. Mutations are just mistakes in DNA replication which are always going to happen and natural selection is the logical fact that some features are better for survival than others and that those with those features are more likely to survive. All we have evidence for is complexity being formed by a bunch of natural processes and no evidence of a designer."

There is also no evidence that evolution wasn't God's process. I agree that natural selection and mutations are logical. But like I said before, we are discussing an illogical God and an illogical creation of the universe. You believe a high being is illogical, and I believe a point in the universe containing an infinite mass and expanding is illogical. You believe it is logical that nature took over and developed the universe as we know it, I believe it is logical that a divine being had to have put together the puzzle pieces to make nay of this possible.

"Actually the bible is very clear in Genesis 1 that a morning and evening marked the beginning and end of each literal day. In addition the ordering of the days is all wrong. Genesis claims that God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day but yet light and the day/night cycle, liquid water, and plants were made before this. It also claims that birds were made along with fish before land animals but the fossil record is very clear that birds only evolved after dinosaurs had existed for hundreds of millions of years and are relatively recent."

Many translations make the understanding of the bible frequently clouded and hard to understand. The Old Testament VERY frequently uses figurative phrases to explain multiple things because, as humans, we would just not be able to comprehend the works of a divine being. And I would also like to argue that no one can act like the pretended understanding of the history of our planet is absolute fact. Processes such as carbon dating are experiments designed by humans, and tested by humans, who want that next big discovery. It is absolutely possible that they found some sort of relationship that we don't clearly understand yet, and claim that it is age. Am I saying that this is what I believe? Of course not. But I am recognizing the possibility.

In addition the bible also claims there was a global flood but there is no massive fossil layer of flooding around the entire planet with all forms of fossilized life inside dated to the exact same era. It is ridiculous that every single species could have fit on one ark which is much smaller than many modern ships and this is obviously a myth.

Even with science's concept of natural selection, wouldn't it be true that there would be less existing animals in the past than today? Less examples of different species? Because isn't natural selection basically the reproduction of a specimen of a species that has a trait that makes them more likely to survive? This does not necessarily make it impossible for that past species to exist. So perhaps there was actually a lot less life during this time period than we could understand? Images of the ark with giraffes and elephants could be entirely figurative, as we do not understand what animals could have existed during that time. Maybe by "animals", it was meant as a specific genus or kingdom? It is not my place to make that assumption, nor is it anyone else's, as we just frankly don't know.

It is also completely illogical why a benevolent God like this would eternally torture people in hell because they weren't lucky enough to figure out what the right religion was, its absolutely ridiculous. If he is so obsessed with people believing in him why doesn't he come down and pay us a visit like any father would?

The Bible states that every being will be exposed to and have an opportunity to convert. Now, whether you believe that or not is up to you. I'll concede that this is very unlikely, but there may be an aspect we don't understand such as other religions that may actually be connected to our religion. He wants us to believe in Him without clear proof. If he were to visit, we would be forced to love him, wouldn't we? So that would be the same thing as taking away our free will, making our love pointless.

"In fact if God is all-powerful then he would already know if we were going to make it to heaven and there is no point to testing us. Since he is all-powerful he could have made earth more like a training camp and then make humans with a good smart nature likely to do well and if some of us are failing he could come down a given us a pep talk. it makes absolutely no sense why God will end up torturing the majority of the population when he could have easily done things a lot differently. There is just no evidence for a being like this."

I am running out of space, so I will just say this: God's understanding is different than we can comprehend. I believe he knows all possibilities; all possible outcomes.
Apophis66

Con

So how is the existence of an intentional beginning of the universe less logical than the existence of an infinite mass and infinite space?

My problem with design is that there is no actual evidence the universe was intentionally designed while there is evidence for the Big Bang theory. The big bang theory does not claim that the universe has infinite mass and the space and extent of our space-time is still something being researched.

And I would like to point out that one claim of evidence for the big bang was a study done in 1929, basically claiming that the movement of galaxies away from us was documented, and that explains the expansion of a singularity that creates this universe. But this test was done in 1929

The Hubble Telescope has been able to measure exactly how fast the universe is expanding. In fact scientists have found that the farther a star is from the earth the faster it is moving away and this can actually be graphed on a line. The only reasonable explanation for this is that space is expanding and more space between will mean more moving away.
https://www.space.com...

I would also like to point out that evidence for the heat involved in the singularity is being argued for by the discovery of CMB, or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, despite the fact that they discovered a temperature of -454 degrees Fahrenheit, or -270 degrees Celsius. How does this extremely low temperature contribute to the extremely high temperature needed to explain a singularity?

This radiation has been sitting around for 14 billion year so it is no surprise that it has cooled down a lot. When scientists were first testing the theory they found that if the big bang happened we should get a very cold radiation and it should have extremely long wavelengths because it has been stretched by the expansion of the universe. That is exactly what they found and this radiation is very consistent in all parts of the sky so we know it isn't coming from stars. The wavelength of this radiation is exactly what models predicted it would be which is extremely unlikely if the theory was false.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...

Lastly, pointing out that there is an abundance of hydrogen and helium in our universe does not exactly explain how that contributes to the big bang.

The big bang predicts that the hot energy in the early universe cooled down and formed simple single-proton hydrogen atoms and these were pulled together by gravity to form stars and stars fuse atoms into higher elements over time. Helium is the easiest to form because it has only two protons and there is plenty of hydrogen to do this with. Higher elements require other higher elements which makes them harder to form. The big bang predicts that the vast majority of elements in stars will be hydrogen with a small minority being helium and higher elements being an even tinier minority and that is exactly what we see from their light spectroscopy. In fact older stars tend to have less helium which is exactly what the theory predicts that over time more and more of it formed.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

This is where the argument crosses into the unexplainable. This is the point where no one can develop a proven answer because it just can't be proven. It isn't for me to say why there is or isn't a God.

We have seen that science can explain how complex things like life and our universe formed and over time there is less and less of a need to make up creation myths to explain the unexplained. So far natural phenomena has been shown to explain so much about our universe while there is no single case of God being found to explain so that makes naturalism a lot more likely candidate.

Another problem is that the God himself is advanced and would need a designer for him, and that designer will need a designer and so on. Design doesn't really fundamentally explain everything and at one point advanced things must have come from some sort of non-design. There is just no evidence for God and no need for him because he doesn't explain how advanced complexity got here because he just adds to the problem.

Also it is extremely unlikely that a belief without evidence is true because it has to compete against all other unproven possibilities. For example, if I hid an object and asked you what it was, it is extremely unlikely that your guess will be right because there is just so many possibilities. In the same way this infinitely powerful God of the Hebrews is an unproven possibility and we can think of an infinite number of alternatives which means it extremely unlikely that this God is real without evidence. Therefore it is almost certain that God doesn't exist. Now we are not completely certain but it ridiculous not to believe something just because it is 99.99% certain and not 100%. This principle is the reason why we regard unproven things like unicorns, elves, and fairies as false as well.

There is also no evidence that evolution wasn't God's process.

There is also no evidence that unicorns, elves, and fairies never existed so are they plausible? Maybe Zeus is secretly behind the natural forces making thunder that we have no evidence of. And if God is all-powerful then why would he even need such a slow, brutal and error-prone process like evolution to make the world when he could just pop everything into existence?

The Old Testament VERY frequently uses figurative phrases to explain multiple things because, as humans, we would just not be able to comprehend the works of a divine being.

But genesis isn't anything like the parts of the bible which are obviously parable like obviously poetic verses and stories that are clearly analogies made by Jesus. It clearly states each day had a beginning and end, and even told a story of people who lived during this and traced a long genealogy from these people to Abraham.

Processes such as carbon dating are experiments designed by humans, and tested by humans, who want that next big discovery. It is absolutely possible that they found some sort of relationship that we don't clearly understand yet, and claim that it is age.

Scientist have found that multiple dating methods using different methods come up with matching dates. That is extremely unlikely if they were false. There are also other dating methods like tree ring and ice core dating which show an old earth. There also many other signs and clues that the earth is very old that I can get into.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Even with science's concept of natural selection, wouldn't it be true that there would be less existing animals in the past than today? Less examples of different species? Because isn't natural selection basically the reproduction of a specimen of a species that has a trait that makes them more likely to survive? This does not necessarily make it impossible for that past species to exist. So perhaps there was actually a lot less life during this time period than we could understand?

Looking at biblical genealogies it was just 5,000 years ago. This isn't enough for much of the complexity of modern life to evolve and this process requires billions of years. Also, we have actually found more species buried underground than exist today with whole groups of dinosaurs, ancient reptiles, ancient fish, and ancient mammals that are now extinct.

We can't even build a seaworthy wooden boat of the Ark's size and when creationist Ken Ham made one with modern technology it isn't seaworthy. It would also have to withstand massive storms and carrying every animal species, along with the enormous amount of food and water to support them. How do we fit all the food and water on this boat, feed all of them, and take care of the dung and urine these animals will generate in a years?

The Bible states that every being will be exposed to and have an opportunity to convert.

Actually there are billions of people who either never heard of Christianity or don't hear much about it. Many have faith in their own religions like you do in yours and don't take other possibilities seriously because of their faith. Why would a benevolent God torture people for this? What kind of person is sick enough to torture billions of people for eternity?

God's understanding is different than we can comprehend. I believe he knows all possibilities; all possible outcomes.

This explanation for God assumes he exists and that there is a reason for his actions. It is circular reasoning to defend the existence of a being with an argument that assumes he exists. Unless you can show there is a secret counter-argument to my very strong arguments then you have to address my arguments like any other in any debate.

I could dream up an all-powerful bunny that laid all the planets from eggs and then just tell everyone that logic doesn't apply and I have faith that any counter-argument is explained because the bunny's reasons are beyond human comprehension. Or if you provide good evidence for tax cuts I can just claim that the economy is very complicated and you can't comprehend everything and there is a counter-argument somewhere.
Debate Round No. 3

Pro

"My problem with design is that there is no actual evidence the universe was intentionally designed while there is evidence for the Big Bang theory. The big bang theory does not claim that the universe has infinite mass and the space and extent of our space-time is still something being researched."

The complexity of the universe and life itself is enough evidence that everything was put together meticulously by a knowing being. And my point wasn't that the universe has an infinite mass; The big bang theory includes the theory that a singularity formed which expanded into the universe we know today, and that it is still expanding. One of the major features of the big bang theory is that this singularity (basically what is at the center of a black hole) has an infinite mass. Which, based upon logical mathematics and physics, is impossible to comprehend. The Law of Conservation of energy dictates that energy can be neither created or destroyed; it can only change shapes. But how can this be true if we originally had an infinite mass in the creation of the universe? You claim that we do not know whether the universe has an infinite mass, but energy is just E=mc^2. So this would mean that the "infinite mass" used in the creation of the universe is still infinite, despite your claim that it isn't? This is a major hole in the big bang argument.
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

"The Hubble Telescope has been able to measure exactly how fast the universe is expanding. In fact scientists have found that the farther a star is from the earth the faster it is moving away and this can actually be graphed on a line. The only reasonable explanation for this is that space is expanding and more space between will mean more moving away."

My only problem with the article you included is the fact that it states very clearly "Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the universe's expansion to speed up. Yet scientists have little idea what it is." So how are we meant to measure something that we aren't even sure exists, as well as push this idea into the minds of avid scholars, when it is uncertain? How can that be a valid argument as to the expansion of the universe if what we believe is causing it isn't known to exist? '"Just over a decade ago, using the words 'precision' and 'cosmology' in the same sentence was not possible, and the size and age of the universe was not known to better than a factor of two," Wendy Freedman of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, Calif., said in a statement.' So how is it accurate to claim the big bang theory as true when it was discovered in 1920, and worked upon in 1990? The theory itself is outdated.

"This radiation has been sitting around for 14 billion year so it is no surprise that it has cooled down a lot. When scientists... the theory was false."

The issue with the article mentioned is that it mentions that "The microwave background radiation, with a wavelength dependence extremely close to that a perfect blackbody, permeates the Universe at 2.725 Kelvin." Blackbodies are completely hypothetical and theoretical concepts, which leads the big bang theory to be built on another theoretical concept. Building theories off of other theories does not make it true. It makes the concept very likely to be false, due to the fact that of course they have to develop their own hypothetical situation to affirm their beliefs. It just simply does not make sense. You can make whatever predictions you want if your entire situation is based upon theoretical concepts that you have created yourself.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...

"We have seen that science can explain how complex things... likely candidate."

It just can't be expected that the universe created itself out of simple luck. For everything to exist in chaos and randomness, and then for everything to be put together perfectly to create laws of physics and to form life and to create gravity just isn't very likely. The perfection of the realm that we live in indicates that it was intentionally put there. It takes MORE faith to believe that an object of infinite mass expanded to create everything we do and don't know, as well as the laws that dictate the possibility of infinity, than it does to believe that an individual of divine nature DESIGNED everything to work in perfect harmony to create a sustainable reality.

"Another problem is that the God himself is advanced and would need a designer... he just adds to the problem."

This is the proof of God over science. Science claims that there is an objective beginning and end to everything. God claims that He exists, always will exist, and always has existed. Evidence of God is found in our every day life, if you are willing to look for it.

"Also it is extremely unlikely that a belief without evidence is true because it has to compete against all other unproven possibilities... as false as well."

The difference between Christianity and other beliefs is that it is PROVEN the historical accuracy of the Bible IN ADVANCE... No one can confidently claim that the big bang happened because no one was there to witness it. But people were here to witness the birth and the death of the Messiah, and the Bible is one of the most historically accurate writings in human history. (Not to mention that some of the greatest events in human history were written about in advance)
https://www.thetrumpet.com...

"There is also no evidence that unicorns, elves, and fairies never existed so are they plausible? Maybe Zeus is secretly behind the natural forces making thunder that we have no evidence of. And if God is all-powerful then why would he even need such a slow, brutal and error-prone process like evolution to make the world when he could just pop everything into existence?"

It sounds like a cop out answer, I understand this, but we simply don't know the method and the mindset used by God. Perhaps evolution was something he used to test the faith of people? Perhaps the development of the big bang theory was a test for the faith of people? That would explain why everything seems to fall into place.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
(This is a very good article explaining the coexistence of the evolution theory and creationism)

"Scientist have found that multiple dating methods using different methods come up with matching dates. That is extremely unlikely if they were false. There are also other dating methods like tree ring and ice core dating which show an old earth. There also many other signs and clues that the earth is very old that I can get into."

And this is where the figurative theme of Genesis comes in. Of course, the Bible never gives a specific number as to the length of the existed universe. Many concepts of Genesis are figurative, and many are not; translation and interpretation is the main culprit behind the proving or the disproving of God.

We can't even build a seaworthy wooden boat of the Ark's size and when creationist Ken Ham made one with modern technology it isn't seaworthy. It would also have to withstand massive storms and carrying every animal species, along with the enormous amount of food and water to support them. How do we fit all the food and water on this boat, feed all of them, and take care of the dung and urine these animals will generate in a years?

Henry Morris, author of "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" (Baker House, 1984), a creationist text, states that "The ark was to be essentially a huge box designed essentially for stability in the waters of the Flood rather than for movement through the waters. ... The ark was taller than a normal three-story building and about one and a half times as long as a football field. The total volumetric capacity was equal to 1,396,000 cubic feet [39,500 cubic meters] ... equivalent to 522 standard railroad stock cars, far more than enough space to carry two of every known kind of animal, living or extinct."
https://www.livescience.com...

"Actually there are billions of people who either never heard of Christianity or don't hear much about it. Many have faith in their own religions like you do in yours and don't take other possibilities seriously because of their faith. Why would a benevolent God torture people for this? What kind of person is sick enough to torture billions of people for eternity?"

The Bible never directly answers the question of how people who never hear about God are dealt with. I personally believe that not believing in God is only a sin if you actively ignore his calling and blatantly call him false. If you have never heard of God, Jesus, or the Bible, or are literally incapable of knowing, then you may not apply. It may sound like a cop out, but this is another concept we just don't understand because it is not our mission. I understand your point that this argument is overused to avoid conflict, but it is a major part of Christianity. God has his plan, and if he were to exist, I wouldn't want to deny him.

Just an extra add on here, I would like to point out that I am actively trying to avoid using Biblical scriptures unless you bring them up because it doesn't make much sense to argue with science with the book Christianity is based upon.

I would also like to point out that all humans are born with a sense of right or wrong. You may claim this as a product of environment, but human beings naturally have a moral compass. Why? Because it is put there by God. I'm out of space so I can't really argue much more. But that is another concept to add to the debate.
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by benguino 3 years ago
benguino
@WannaBePhoenix Ah gotcha, thanks.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@benguino You can't join in on a debate while it is going on, but you can leave you're own opinions in the comments and follow along until voting time for the winner.
Posted by benguino 3 years ago
benguino
Im new to this site how do I join in with the debate?
Posted by pi3.14 3 years ago
pi3.14
Som if you're a moderate democrat... will you debate me on abortion (I would be con)? Do you think abortion is right?
This debate has 2 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.