The Instigator
TheCurryMonster
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Thoht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 931 times Debate No: 118779
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

TheCurryMonster

Pro

There is much evidence that shows that there is a God and that He created the universe. Atheists these days are trying to say that the belief in God is purely based on faith, But the evidence actually shows that it takes more faith to be an atheist.
Thoht

Con

Happy to think with you today.

My contention will be that there is no evidence for God's existence. The state of the universe is how we would expect it to look with our current understanding of logic and reasoning. No one can disprove or prove God exists, Much the same as no one can disprove or prove that Unicorns exist. This is exactly how you would expect things to look if Unicorns, And God, Did not exist. The Burden of Proof is on the one who makes the positive claim, And as so, The first arguments are yours.

As a point of clarification, Are we arguing for a specific God (i. E. Christian, Et cetera), Or the concept of God?
Debate Round No. 1
TheCurryMonster

Pro

To clarify, We are debating the concept of God (ie. An intelligent designer).

"This is exactly how you would expect things to look if Unicorns, And God, Did not exist" But if there is no God, Then how do you explain the fact that this universe even exists? How would we have such a universe, One that we can rely on our logic and reasoning? Evidence shows that the universe is not infinitely old and that there was a point in time when it was created. How would it have been created without a Creator? The only two possibilities are that there is a Being that created it, Or that no one created it.

Considering how many variables in our universe have to be fine-tuned to support life, It is much more probable that it has been created by a highly intelligent Being.
1. Every design has a designer.
2. The universe has a very complex design.
3. Therefore, The universe has a Designer.
When you see an airplane, You don't think that it was a product from an explosion at an airplane factory. You dismiss that possibility because it is not reasonable.
"No one can disprove or prove God exists, " but you can look at the evidence and show that He exists beyond a reasonable doubt. You can see evidence of His existence by the results of His works, Like the creation of the universe.

The universe is very fine-tuned for us to be here right now. For example, If the law of gravity varied even slightly the universe would not be habitable for life. In relation to the other forces of nature, Gravity must be fine-tuned to 1 in 10^40. Another example is, As physicist Stephen Hawking said, "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, The universe would have re collapsed before it even reached its present size". There are actually 19 such universal constants that must each be perfectly fine-tuned. In fact, Oxford physicist Paul Davies concluded that if we jointly considered all the laws of nature that must be fine-tuned, We would be unable to write down such a large number, Since the necessary digits would be greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe.

There are two options, Either God created such a fine-tuned universe for us, Or it all happened by blind chance. It is much more logical to believe that there was an intelligent Creator behind it, Then dumb chance. It takes much more faith to believe that chance created this universe then an intelligent Creator.

Another argument for a Creator is the question of where life first began. Either there is a God who created life, Or there is no God, Therefore life just occurred from non-life. There is zero evidence that life can come out of non-life. There is no atheist that can claim that they know where life came from. Knowing what we know, The only reasonable and logical conclusion is that there was an intelligent Designer who created life. Non-life cannot create life. Life is so extremely complex that if we were to write out all the DNA (ATCG) of the "primitive amoeba" as Richard Dawkins calls it, It would fill up 1000 encyclopedias. It is true that we should not assume that God is responsible for everything that we cannot explain, But with the creation of the universe, The naturalistic options cannot explain it. I will say it again, There is no evidence that life can come from non-life. Even if it could, The precision with which chemicals must be mixed together could not come from pure chance. That leaves us with the option that there is an intelligent Creator that created such complex creations.

You can argue that if you give it more time, You can eventually get the right combination of chemicals to create life. But the second law of thermodynamics says that, Basically, With more time, Nature creates chaos, Not the order needed to create life, Therefore making the chance of attaining the order needed for life even lower. And the chance of this occurring is so low it is virtually zero.

That is why I believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe there is a God. The atheist needs to explain away this evidence that I have presented while not having enough evidence to hold his stand. He needs much more faith, To fill the holes in his view where there is no evidence to support it.
Thoht

Con

I only have space to address your arguments, Unfortunately.

1. "If there is no god, How do you explain the fact that this universe exists? "

There are a few misunderstandings you seem to have right now. I'll address those first then answer.

First, The Big Bang Theory does not suggest how the universe came to be. This does not, By itself, Suggest that the universe is not infinitely old. It describes what happened a moment after the "bang" but not prior to it. It is currently our best model that explains much of what we see in the universe. This doesn't mean it is true. It means it's our best answer right now.

Logic and reasoning would have us understand that we don't know how the universe was created, Or if it was created. And that is my answer to you. I don't know. My only claim here is that you do not either.

You say the only two possibilities that exist are that either no one created it or someone created it. This is a false dichotomy unless you include the possibility that it was never created in "no one created it. "

There are many possibilities. The universe may have always existed. There may be big bangs happening all the time in multiple universes. We could have Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches. The universe is currently expanding but we have no way to prove that it won't collapse back to a single point in the future. A being may have created it. The lack of knowledge as to how, Or if, It began does not mean a godly origin is the best or the most likely candidate. We simply lack adequate knowledge to begin to guess.

"I don't know" is currently the best, And only answer all the reputable scientists will give you. It is the answer I give. Most people accept that the Big Bang Theory will be expanded upon in the future.

There are mythologies in many cultures to explain why the moon waxes and wanes. They explain what the stars are as different things. The leap to "it must have been god" stems only from our lack of knowledge. We can say this because 1. Nothing we have explained with science has ever turned out to be god. 2. We have explained much of what used to be considered god's doing with science. Science is slowly but surely improving in knowledge and god is ever so gradually creeping out. Your argument here is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. Whenever we don't have a scientific explanation we jump to god.

2. Intelligent Design

The issue with the inductive argument is that the universe does not have a complex design. It's actually fairly simple, Based on the knowledge we have now. There are bits that still need explanation for sure, But there's no reason yet to give credit to a god or to imply that god is the most likely explanation. Phenomena we have seen can be explained and is explained in the Big Bang model. Physics has a good understanding of much of it.

When I see an airplane I know with over 99% certainty that a human made it. When I see a tree I understand that evolution made it. The universe is large enough for improbable events to occur. An airplane and the known universe are not synonymous comparisons. You have to say that you look at EVERYTHING and think it has a designer. That's your problem. For you, You look at a rock and think it has a designer. If god created everything, Saying that you look at anything is saying it has a designer. You may as well just say you see things. It is an argument that tries to appeal to "common sense" by using an airplane - a known human creation - instead of a rock, Where the appeal would fall to deaf ears.

What stops me from following this chain of logic further?

1. Every design has a designer.
2. God has a complex design.
3. Therefore, God has a Designer.

Your argument falls apart before it begins. An infinite regress of designer designers.

No one is ruling god out as a possibility, But this is not evidence for god.

3. Fine Tuning

Three counterpoints here.

3a. The universe is not fine tuned for human life.

99. 9999%+ of the universe is uninhabitable by us. As in, We would die if we were in most of it extremely quickly. The majority of the space on our own planet is uninhabitable by us. If a god's plan was to create a universe for us, He did a terrible job of it. Humans ourselves are incredibly flawed beings. To say god created this universe is to say he couldn't have made a better universe, Or that he couldn't have made humans in a superior form to what we currently have. A 3 year old could spot a few flaws with the human body in a few seconds with little to no coaching. You've probably already thought of 10 ways we could be improved. Is this the best god could do?

3b. You are comparing a highly unlikely scenario (and giving more faith to scientists than they likely deserve on how well they've analyzed the probability) with a scenario whose probability cannot be measured. You're essentially saying. 01% (much worse) < "a number I assume is higher. " This is not how logic works. You cannot call this a logical statement.

What you are acknowledging though, Is that the universe could have arrived at its constants without a god to do so for it. So you acknowledge that we may have gotten extremely lucky. I don't acknowledge that a supreme power capable of finely tuning the universe whose existence is unexplained or outside the realm of logic is more likely than the former scenario that is inside the realm of logic. I don't acknowledge that you understand that probability any better than I do.

3c. We don't know what other lifeforms could exist if those constants were changed.

Why do you assume that when 90% of scientists in royal academies don't profess a belief in god that they are wrong (even when most of them have almost certainly heard of this argument before), Yet you assume we have such a good grasp of science that we understand what life could exist if those constants were changed? We could all be gaseous lifeforms, Or exist on the same realm as you may think god does.

Your point is a good one, But without knowing the probability of a universe-creating fine-tuning being spawning out of nothing, Or assuming he doesn't have a creator, You cannot logically say that the probability of the universe existing with these constants - which you acknowledge is possible regardless of the low probability - is lower than god existing. This is closer to evidence for god, But a long, Long reach of logic. This is the best argument of all of them for god's existence, By most people's estimation, But you are estimating god's probability here, And that is a faith position, Not a scientific one. I'll go with the explanation that we know could have happened. There are plenty of circumstances that are unlikely to have occurred probability-wise but have occurred. Technically, We don't know that there aren't infinite universes and that we just happen to be conscious in one of the few where our existence is possible.

4. Abiogenesis

This argument is the same as the universe's creation. However, There are more clear answers here.

Abiogenesis experiments have yielded some results. The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 has produced amino acids from inorganic precursors. This is not "no evidence. " If the most basic self-replicator can be shown to exist, Evolution gives us the rest of complexity.

If you look up the study you'll see it. So no, We can't point directly to the first Life. We can't draw a line all the way from the big bang to us quite yet, But we're making grounds. Progress is being made, Slowly.

To insert god here instead of saying "I don't know" is again "God of the Gaps. " Saying because we can't draw that line it MUST have been god. That it is the only explanation. This is not how logic works.

Please remember, The universe is a big place. We don't know how big it is. Improbable events have plenty of likelihood to occur. They are harder to reproduce and prove.

God is not the logical conclusion.
Debate Round No. 2
TheCurryMonster

Pro

TheCurryMonster forfeited this round.
Thoht

Con

Opponent forfeited previous round. In a sense of fairness I pass this one, And hope he continues.
Debate Round No. 3
TheCurryMonster

Pro

TheCurryMonster forfeited this round.
Thoht

Con

It appears my opponent has no response. He forfeited the round and not due to time.

Happy to have thought with you today,

-Thoht.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
There are elements one could describe as "faith" with everyone who logically reasons. The initial axioms we all take. We currently have no idea how life started or what preceded the big bang. It is not a far reach to say that it takes faith for this, But it is at best mistaken for sure. The best way to say it is we don't know and are unwilling to jump to conclusions, Including the conclusion that a god does not exist.

Atheists don't believe a god exists. Theists do. Agnostics claim to not have knowledge of which is true. Gnostics claim to have that knowledge. As such, Atheists do have a 'belief' of sorts, But to call that faith is a stretch. Faith is defined as a belief in something without evidence. In this case, One could say that the lack of direct evidence of a god could be said to be evidence that one does not exist sufficient to not be faith, But not be proof. I. E. Belief.
Posted by kwbc 3 years ago
kwbc
*Claims atheists require faith to be atheists*

*claims god is beyond mans capabilities to directly and indirectly measure or observe thus requiring faith*

gg
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
I like how Christian know god's name, Sex, Birthday, And what god does for a living.
Male Capricorn, 2000 years old, But still got going on, Seeks female with bid celestial breasts, Must be a virgin. You can't know for sure if any gods exist and, Even if they do, They don't seem to care about us enough to justify worrying about them.
If a god does exist, What does he do?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
TheCurryMonsterThohtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I have debate similar to this one I think pro can benefit from having a look. But I do like Pro's style. Very nostalgic.

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