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

God is Real

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  
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: 2/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,840 times Debate No: 86343
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)




God is real. Science proves it. There are several experiments that consist proving that there is an eternal force that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Science also claims that "energy" can be neither created nor destroyed (reason enough to believe in an un-created, indestructible eternal force) while purporting other scientific "laws" like the Law of Bio-Genesis, The First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Like Forces Repelling. Please feel free to start the debate "against". I'll be waiting.


"Many theologians and theistic scientists claim that evidence has been found for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or, at least, some being with supernatural powers. However, they cannot deny that their evidence is not sufficiently convicing to satisfy the majority of scientists." (1)

"In 1997, the British science journal Nature published the results of a random sampling of 1,000 scientists...approximately 40 percent of scientists proclaimed a belief in a personal God." (2)

" a follow-up study [Edward] Larson and [Larry] Witham controlled for "eminance," or what their predecessor James Leuba called the "greater" scientists -- those who held 'superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.'" (2)

"...Larson and Witham found...that when eminance is controlled for, disbelief in God rose to 69 percent among biologists, and 79 percent for physicists. When "doubt" or "agnosticism" is factored in, actual belief in God among eminent scientists (averaged over all fields) drops to a paltry 7 percent." (2)

"It should be emphasized that these figures are for Americans. The United Kingdom, Europe, and other developed nations of the world show lower levels of belief for both the general population and among scientists..." (2)


Science does not prove that God is real. So, it's no surprise that the majority of scientists do not believe in God.

I have no idea which "several experiments" you're talking about that apparently prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal force. I guess the majority of scientists haven't heard of these experiments either. Please elucidate.

You argue that the law of conservation of energy is "reason enough to believe in an un-created, indescructible eternal force." I don't get it. To me, this argument seems irrational. Maybe I'm missing something.

According to Wikipedia, the law of biogenesis "is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction. That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation." What does this have to do with God? God is not a living thing, made of living material, that reproduces.

I can't imagine what you hope to prove about God with the first or second law of thermodynamics, or "the Law of Like Forces Repelling."


(1) Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis
(2) Michael Shermer, How We Believe
Debate Round No. 1


German physicist Werner Heisenberg, a scientist by the way, concluded that quantum events cannot be predicted. He maintains that all freed electrons behave as if they are being influenced by an outside variable or force. This is the basis of his "Uncertainty Principle". I would like to ask you, what is that "force"?

Malcolm W. Browne discovered that there was a force that connected to two freed electrons and since energy is eternal, this force had to be and that it was also present in our time yet not involved with the flow of our time. Again I ask you, "what is that force"?

YOU say that science does not prove God. I say it DOES. Many great scientists, the smartest ones, like Sir Isaac Newton, Carl Sagan and the greatest scientist of our times, Albert Einstein did/does believe in God. Here is a list for you of a number of scientists that does believe in God;

Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck

I could go on and on and on, so I don't know who this "majority of scientist" you talk about that don't believe in God are. I am one who does. I have provided for you two experiments completed by scientists that prove there is an eternal force manipulating and connecting energy. Your "religion", science, says energy can be neither created nor destroyed, if you don't know of this theory, then that says a lot right there. No offense to you, but you probably want to do a bit more research.

Energy has been proven to be eternal, connected to all freed electrons which means it is everywhere, knows everything and is timeless. If God controls and connects all freed electrons and have all of these attributes, then he would in fact be GOD, wouldn't he? Science itself has proven these things about energy. I challenge YOU to do your own homework on this. I have given you the framework. You can look up Heisenberg and Browne, and while you're at it, look up Quantum Balancing, and the Russian Science Experiment, The Double Slit Experiment and Volgelsang's Self Thinking Interface or STI device, and you will find your scientific proof there.

You claim "not to get" the "scientific theory" on energy and its attributes, lol? Please feel free to look that one up also, for your own edification. Is is no small wonder that it "seems" irrational" to you, yet you fail to describe how and why. Please enlighten us.

The Law of bio-genesis means "all life comes from LIFE", not out of nothing. If this scientific theory is to hold true, life could not be created out of nothingness. It would HAVE to be borne out of......LIFE. Meaning you have a "Creator", my friend. It takes a much greater leap of faith for me to believe nothing blew up, and out of nothing came a perfectly crafted universe capable of creating and sustaining "life" out of nothing. THAT seems "irrational" to me.

The Law of Thermodynamics discusses "entropy", meaning anything, left to itself, would decay or fall into a state of chaos. Everything. Even an empty room, unattended, would fall into decay. This theory proves that this universe of ours has to have a "caretaker" otherwise, the "Scientific Law" of thermodynamics is moot. It seems to be easier to disprove scientific "laws" than it is to disprove God, unless those "laws" proclaim a Creator God, which they do.

As for like forces repelling, again, this clearly illustrates your ignorance of both science and God. Man is made of of atoms. Atoms are made up of neutrons and protons. Like forces, according to science, are supposed to repel. What, my friend, may I ask is holding us together??? Let me know when you come up with the answer. None of your non-believing scientist friends have ever been able to answer that one as of yet.


I gave you the results of a scientific study involving hundreds of scientists. The majority did not believe in God. When eminance was controlled for, disbelief in God only increased. You gave me a list of 11 scientists, most of whom died hundreds of years ago. As for Einstein, this is what he had to say about God:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." [1]

"With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend." [2]

"The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God." [2]

Eminent scientists (like Einstein) are even less likely to believe in anything like the God of Christianity. This makes sense, given the results of the study I mentioned. Einstein certainly never made god-of-the-gaps arguments, which is what you're doing here. Mysteries in science do not prove that God exists. Just because I am unable to explain this-or-that myserious force does not prove that the force is God. There are 1,001 questions that me and my "non-believing scientist friends" have never been able to answer.

"Science has an unanswered question—big deal. Science has lots of unanswered questions. It also has a marvelous track record for answering them." [3]

"'God did it' is simply a repackaging of 'I don’t know.' It tells us nothing new. I’m no smarter after hearing 'God did it' than before." [3]

Re: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

"Another prediction of the creator hypothesis also fails to be confirmed by the data. If the universe were created, then it should have possessed some degree of order at the creation—the design that was inserted at that point by the Grand Designer. This expectation of order is usually expressed in terms of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy or disorder of a closed system must remain constant or increase with time. It would seem to follow that if the universe today is a closed system, it could not always have been so. At some point in the past, order must have been imparted from the outside.

Prior to 1929, this was a strong argument for a miraculous creation. However, in that year astronomer Edwin Hubble reported that the galaxies are moving away from one another at speeds approximately proportional to their distance, indicating that the universe is expanding. This provided the earliest evidence for the big bang. For our purposes, an expanding universe could have started in total chaos and still formed localized order consistent with the second law.

The simplest way to see this is with a (literally) homey example. Suppose that whenever you clean your house, you empty the collected rubbish by tossing it out the window into your yard. Eventually the yard would be filled with rubbish. However, you can continue doing this with a simple expedient. Just keep buying up the land around your house and you will always have more room to toss the rubbish. You are able to maintain localized order—in your house—at the expense of increased disorder in the rest of the universe.

Similarly, parts of the universe can become more orderly as the rubbish, or entropy, produced during the ordering process (think of it as disorder being removed from the system being ordered) is tossed out into the larger, ever-expanding surrounding space. As illustrated in figure 4.1, the total entropy of the universe increases as the universe expands, as required by the second law. However, the maximum possible entropy increases even faster, leaving increasingly more room for order to form. The reason for this is that the maximum entropy of a sphere of a certain radius (we are thinking of the universe as a sphere) is that of a black hole of that radius. The expanding universe is not a black hole and so has less than maximum entropy. Thus, while becoming more disorderly on the whole as time goes by, our expanding universe is not maximally disordered. But, once it was." [4]


[1] Letter from Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner, September 28, 1949. Found in The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer. Page 184.

[2] Religion and Science, article by Albert Einstein. Appeared in New York Times, November 9, 1930.

[3] Bob Seidensticker. "God Did It" Explains Everything...or Maybe Not.

[4] Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis
Debate Round No. 2


I gave you the names of a few of the most prominent scientists in the history of science. The theories that these scientists, who believed in God, are what your group of "hundreds" of scientists base most of their life's work on. I gave you those names, because I didn't want to type the names of the hundreds of other scientists that DO believe in a Creator God. I was kind of hopeful you would do your own research. Wishful thinking.

As far as Einstein, this is what I "Googled" and found in terms of what he believed about God; "Einstein stated in his final letter: 'I am not an atheist.', explaining at one point: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Sounds like a believer to me, and he was quite critical, to the point of anger, about people like you.

"Science has unanswered questions" is simply another repackaging of "I don't know". It goes both ways. It also tells us nothing new. I'm no smarter after hearing "Science has unanswered questions" than before. Scientists clearly state all the time that if there is a cause and effect to anything, science ought to be able to explain it. Why can't science answer those questions I posed? Belief in a Creator God can. He would be the only possible answer when "science has unanswered questions".

Re: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Your cut and paste response of the writing on the 2nd law of thermodynamics is baseless. You talk about dumping rubbish into a yard and expanding it to the point everything because some how orderly through this expansion (lol). Yea, and if I throw a couple of paints on the wall, eventually, it would form into the Mona Lisa too, over billions and billions of years, right? How can you present this argument (proving that you don't really know science or its laws, its no wonder you can't conceive a Creator God) if you don't realize that science at first believed that the universe was infinite? It was only later that "science" realized that the universe was expanding (oops), so what is it "expanding" into? Its own infinite-ness? Do you see the folly of your logic and those who support it? Science is wrong, more often than not. And please don't criticize my support of the fathers of science and talk about how long they've been dead and then also quote scientists from the stone age. That's a tad hypocritical and kind of rank amateurish of you as a debater.

You didn't respond to a myriad of other questions I presented, experiments that were tested and proven about energy, its qualities (the same qualities that the Bible insist God has) how it relates to this universe, about freed electrons and how energy is timeless, everywhere, all knowing and all powerful. Powerful enough to create matter out of a transformation of other energy....Go on my friend, dig deeper. You will find the answers to the questions that "science can't answer" because in reality, science already has. There is a Creator God and science, more so and than any other religion, proclaims it and loudly.


[1] Final Letter From Einstein by Prince Hubertus zu Loewenstein- Wertheim-Freudenberg


On Einstein / Scientists' Belief in God

Whether or not Einstein was an "atheist" depends on your definition of God, and your definition of atheism. Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind." He also said, "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." [1] Obviously, Einstein did not believe in the God of Christianity.

I never made the claim that "no scientists believe in God." Many scientists believe in God, especially scientists who lived hundreds of years ago. Scientists subscribed to all sorts of unscientific nonsense back then. Isaac Newton believed in God; he also believed in alchemy. Today, in 2016, nobody considers alchemy to be a legitimate scientific pursuit.

I am certain you could come up with a sizable list of scientists, past and present, who believe in God. This would not change the fact that these scientists are in the minority. Unless you can show me the results of a comparable study that contradicts the results of the study I provided, you must concede that most scientists do not believe in God.

God of the Gaps

I readily admit that there are mysteries in nature that science has not yet found the answer to.

"Many people are overconfident enough to think that if they cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable and therefore a true mystery of the paranormal...There are many genuine unsolved mysteries in the universe and it is okay to say, 'We do not yet know but someday perhaps we will.' The problem is that most of us find it more comforting to have certainty, even if it is premature, than to live with unsolved or unexplained mysteries." [2]

"Science does not explain everything, so there is always room for other explanations and the believer is easily convinced that the explanation is God. However, the God of the gaps argument by itself fails, at least as a scientific argument, unless the phenomenon in question is not only currently scientifically inexplicable but can be shown to forever defy natural description. God can only show up by proving to be necessary, with science equally proven to be incapable of providing a plausible account of the phenomenon based on natural or material processes alone." [3]

"God did it" is not a scientific theory. It's a pseudo-explanation. It applies everywhere, and explains nothing. Once upon a time, people had no scientific explanation for night and day. People like you would have said, "Oh you can't explain it? Well I can: God did it!" Luckily, there were people who would not accept "God did it" as a sufficient explanation. Those people went on to discover the genuine explanation for night and day: the earth is round, and it rotates.

You said: "...please don't criticize my support of the fathers of science and talk about how long they've been dead and then also quote scientists from the stone age." I quoted a book from 2007. I don't know what you're talking about here.

Debunking the Law of Biogenesis Argument

Biogenesis is "the theory, opposed to spontaneous generation, that living matter always arises by the agency of preexisting living matter." [4] Here's another definition: the law of biogenesis is "the observation that living things only come from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation." [5] God is supernatural. God is not "living matter" or a "living thing" made out of "living material" who birthed humanity through physical reproduction. The law of biogenesis does not apply.

On Energy

You said, "Energy has been proven to be eternal, connected to all freed electrons which means it is everywhere, knows everything and is timeless. If God controls and connects all freed electrons and have all of these attributes, then he would in fact be GOD, wouldn't he? Science itself has proven these things about energy."

Sounds like you're anthropomorphizing energy. In what sense does energy "know" anything? Furthermore, you're making some irrational leaps here. Energy is eternal, therefore energy is the personal creator God of the Bible? That doesn't make any sense.


[1] Quotes from Einstein found in The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer. Pages 182-183
[2] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things
[3] Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis
Debate Round No. 3


Well, since we are not here to debate whether or not Einstein believes in a God you don't believe exist, I think its a moot point to continue down that path. I have given you enough evidence on his position. Logically thinking, you cannot argue against something without first considering that its possible, for the record. If there were absolute irrefutable "evidence" of no God, no one would have accepted the challenge.

I didn't say you claimed no scientist believed in God, I merely pointed out that you didn't claim any did. You did however imply that "100's of scientists" did not. I mere illustrated that 100's of others do. It doesn't matter how many scientist believe or not believe or who is in the "minority" When they are wrong, that are almost universally wrong, aren't they? It doesn't really give credence to free thinking among scientists, does it? Conceding that most scientist don't believe in God means what? I can also conclude that most idiots don't believe in God either. What's the point either way? Science has all the answers? That's your god? Then why can't it answer the questions I posed??? Why has science been so wrong about so many things?

God of the Gaps

You readily admit that there are mysteries in nature that science has not yet found the answers to in all these billions of billions of years. Someone or something is very limited if the earth has been here THAT long and STILL not one scientist can come up with the answer to these unanswered questions....unless you consult your Bible. The answers are ALL there.

I appreciate your assertion about many people being overconfident about the inability to explain something. That works in reverse as well. While you may feel its ok to say, "we do not yet know something but perhaps someday we will", I can equally assert that "the fool has said in his heart there is no God", or "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse", the Holy Bible.

You talk about certainty, but what are you certain about? Nothing exploding out of nothing and creating something out of nothing? That most scientific theories are the guess work of (some) madmen who refuse to believe in God, many theories of which are often proven wrong? The problem is, a rebellious person never wants to be accountable to a divine righteous God because it requires "accountability" and we live in a time where that word is almost an insult more so than EVER before. Again, You breathe invisible air, are held here by an invisible force...blah blah blah, but refuse to even consider an invisible force, responsible for all creation and its sustenance? What sense does this make?

Debunking the Law of Bio-genesis Argument

You can continue to attempt to debunk this, but the Bible says "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". God gave man life. The law of bio-genesis is completely applicable. Its too late to try to debunk it and disassociate it with a Creator God. Life doesn't spring out of nowhere. That's YOUR god, SCIENCE, talking pal.

One of the several scientific experiments that you clearly ignored or apparently conceded to was the one by Malcolm Browne who discovered in his theory, "Signal Travels Faster Than Light" that there was a force connecting two freed electrons, it proved to be eternal (energy cannot be created or destroyed, remember?) was present in our time yet not involved with the flow of our time. He theorized that this "force" connects ALL freed electrons. Every particle that releases energy connects to this force. Everything that is connected beyond the stars all release electrons, light, radiation, etc. This means this force is everywhere in the universe and would see an know everything in the universe. This is simple enough.
You say that energy is the creator god while I say God is a tremendous light and power source that created the universe and gave it life. Why does this NOT make sense to you???


[1] King James Bible Author Holy Spirit Through Various Human Writers

[2] Signal Travels Faster Than Light By Malcolm Browne


On Malcolm W. Browne

Malcolm Browne never had a theory called "Signal Travels Faster Than Light." He never theorized anything; Malcolm W. Browne was a journalist, not a scientist. [1] Once, he wrote an article for the New York Times titled Far Apart, 2 Particles Respond Faster Than Light. [2] I read the article. Quantum physics is spooky, mysterious stuff. As Victor Stenger says, "Quantum mechanics is thought, even by many physicists, to be suffused with mysteries and paradoxes. Mystics seize upon these to support their views." He notes, "Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations. The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle’s appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity." [3] For more information, see the article below.

Again, there are many things in science that are spooky, mysterious, difficult to make sense of, or even incomprehensible at the present moment. We should continue to study these things, scientifically. Science works from the assumption that natural phenomenon can be explained by material causes. Any paradox is easy to “solve” if we renounce materialism and resort to supernatural explanations. Lazy quacks would love to give up and say "God did it." But remember: many insurmountable mysteries of 100 years ago have genuine, scientific, materialistic, evidence-based explanations today. Instead of throwing in the towel, we should work towards making sense of these mysteries, rationally and scientifically. This means we don’t make arguments from personal incredulity. We don’t argue, “I can’t personally conceive of a materialistic explanation, therefore it’s supernatural.” That argument is fallacious.

On Science

You seem disappointed that science has not yet answered every possible question about nature. Well, science has only existed for a few hundred years, not "billions of billions of years" as you suggest. You are correct that science has been wrong about many things.

"It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallability lies its greatest strength: self-correction. Whether a mistake is made honestly or dishonestly, whether a fraud is unknowingly or knowingly perpetrated, in time it will be flushed out of the system by lack of external verification. The cold fusion fiasco is a classic example of the system's swift exposure to error." [6]

"Faith has no checks and balances, no follow-up investigation to see if an intuition works." [7]

Answers in the Bible

You encourage me to "consult your Bible" because "the answers are ALL there." All the wrong answers, maybe. I don't know about you, but when I look around myself right now, I see: my laptop, coffee maker, speakers, cell phone, smoke alarm, my clothes, my contact lenses, etc. These things are the fruit of science; not the fruit of the spirit. If all we did was "consult the Bible", I would have none of these things. The Bible certinaly does not have ALL the answers to scientific questions; it has a few makeshift answers to certain questions, and all of them are more-or-less wrong.

My Opinion on God

I agree with Michael Shermer when he says, "I do not know that there is no God, but I do not believe in God, and have good reasons to think that the concept of God is socially and psychologically constructed." Unlike Victor Stenger and Richard Dawkins, I do not believe that the existence of God is a scientific issue. As Robert Carroll points out, "What scientific knowledge or empirical test could falsify the concept of an eternal non-physical consciousness with the power to create things out of nothing? [...] Claiming that the existence of gods and spirits are scientific matters opens the door and invites every variety of superstition into the science arena. They don't belong in the arena. They belong in the parking lot." [5]


[1] Malcolm W. Browne, Wikipedia (;)
[2] Far Apart, 2 Particles Respond Faster Than Light, by Malcolm W. Browne (;)
[3] Quantum Quackery, by Victor Stenger (;)
[4] The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer, Pages 176-177
[5] Can Science Decide the God Question? by Robert Todd Carroll
[6] Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer
[7] The New Atheism, by Victor Stenger
Debate Round No. 4


On Malcolm W. Browne

Malcolm Browne was a journalist AND photographer that studied several scientists, took photographs of many scientific experiments AND THEORIZED that signal travels faster than light. ANYONE can theorize anything. You don't have to be a scientist to do so (you should know better than this). J. R. Nova once said " Science is far too limited to prove God. It doesn't even understand why gravity doesn't work at quantum levels. In reality, it doesn't understand much of anything. Have faith, faith is really all we have, even in science" and for the most part, I tend to agree. If anything, science lean more toward verifying God than it does not.

To say that there are many things in science that is spooky and mysterious while disregarding the definition of science, which is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic STUDY of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and experiment" is spooky and mysterious in itself. Telling me that are "many things in science that are spooky and mysterious" goes against the very definition of the You have to admit, that the only thing that can explain these "spooky mysteries" is the Creator God that so many non -believers find......spooky and mysterious. No pun intended.

On Science

I AM disappointed that science has not been able to answer all of these questions, many of which are answered in the Holy Bible, because so many non-believers often quote their god by saying "that's science" when trying to prove often moot points. You're admitting that science is often wrong, yea, well, suppose all of these "100 of scientists" are wrong about the existence of a Creator God? Are you willing to wager your soul on the probability that they are again...WRONG???

How many mistakes, failures and fallacies have you found in the Bible? Please point them out to me, from Old Testament prophecies to New Testament predictions. They have ALL come into reality. The last being how this world will come to an end and its new beginning, just stick around for awhile longer, you will see.

Answers in the Bible

Herein lies your ignorance. You say you look around and see all of these material things and they are the fruits of science, yet you say science is only a few hundred years old and material things were around LONG before your religion, science, came into existence. Your assertion is a very foolish one. Man is made up of spirit, remember? Man "created" science so science is born of the spirit of man, whether you like it or not.

On Faith in God

This one is simple. People say they don't gamble. EVERYONE gambles. Every decision made against a particular outcome is a wager. Where should I live? What woman should I marry? Should I leave my job for the other offer? ALL wagers. That being said, If God is not real, I have gained nothing nor lost anything by believing. Hey, it made me a slightly less diabolical person while I was alive in consideration of my "Creator" and his laws (love thy neighbor as thy self being one of the primary ones) and did ok. If I believe in God and he is real, I have gained eternal life.

ON THE OTHER HAND......If I DON'T believe in God and he is not real, what have I gained or lost? Nothing. But if I don't believe and he is real, I HAVE LOST EVERYTHING (including my soul). This is a suckers wager. With faith in God you have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and by a lack of faith in God, you have everything to lose and NOTHING to gain. Good luck to you on your life's journey my friend, you're going to need it.


Pro began this debate with the assertion that "God is real. Science proves it." His argument seems to have been borrowed from this website:

My opponent began Round #2 with:

German physicist Werner Heisenberg, a scientist by the way, concluded that quantum events cannot be predicted. He maintains that all freed electrons behave as if they are being influenced by an outside variable or force. This is the basis of his "Uncertainty Principle". I would like to ask you, what is that "force"?

Malcolm W. Browne discovered that there was a force that connected to two freed electrons and since energy is eternal, this force had to be and that it was also present in our time yet not involved with the flow of our time. Again I ask you, "what is that force"?

The website (see above) starts off like this:

Werner Heisenberg came to the conclusion that quantum events can not be predicted. Uncertainty principlesstates all freed electrons behaves as if they are being influence by an outside variable of force.

In signal travel and faster than light by Malcolm W. Browne, a force was found connecting two freed electrons was proved to be eternal--present within our time but not involve with the flow of our time.

Thank you, Pro, for correcting the spelling mistakes. (Maybe you should have listed this website as a source.)

Here's the problem: the arguments you found on this webpage are incoherent. The first argument is: "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princple, therefore God is eternal!" Here's another one: "The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, therefore God is all-powerful!" Also: "Double-slit experiment, therefore God is omniscient!" These arguments don't make any sense.

All in all, Pro's argument in favour of God can be summarized as: "Science has unanswered questions, therefore God." I have nothing more to say on this subject. Pro ended Round #5 with Pascal's Wager, which assumes that either "Christianity is true" or "no religions are true." That's a false dichotomy. Perhaps Islam is the one true religion. In that case, Christians will be punished in the afterlife.

If you are somebody who chooses to have faith in God, to pray, to read the Bible, then I respect that and I am happy for you. Christianity is a healthy way to find spiritual fulfillment. That's what religious faith is all about. Religious faith is not about evidence, science, facts, proof, experiments, numbers, equations, laws, etc.

Nobody listens to Jesus' Parable of the Sower and asks, "Who was this farmer sowing the seeds? What year was it when the seeds were sown?" These facts are not important. Jesus' underlying message is what counts. But we live in an age of science and reason. Too many Christians have become convinced that unless their religious faith passes the tests of science and reason, their faith is worthless. Religion and science have different roles.

The rational, scientific answer to the question, "Does the Christian God exist?" is no.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heirio 2 years ago
Just got back.
To be a Christian, you need to believe in the Christian God. Einstein didn't believe in him. Neither did Carl Sagan. Therefore they were not Christians.
Christianity is a religion. Sorry.
The definition of religion:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Christianity fits rather perfectly.

Sorry I was hoy headed, it just annoys me when people claim falsehoods are fact.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
From Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion: "Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as [Dietrich] Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide. What worries scientists is something else. It is an essential part of the scientific enterprise to admit ignorance, even to exult in ignorance as a challenge to future conquests. As my friend Matt Ridley has written, 'Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.' Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do. More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.

Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. [...]

Those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is 'paranormal'."
Posted by Eyeofthebeholder 2 years ago
This "kid" is only 22 years old. How brilliant is that? Regardless of his position on faith and God, his debating skills are commendable. I'm impressed! The jury was out on degree of intellect and spiritual maturity, but for a 22 year old? Superb. Would like to see what you will be like in ten years.....
Posted by Eyeofthebeholder 2 years ago
No, I challenge you to do your own homework because you seem lazy and don't seem to understand what science, God, the Bible or physics are. When you can't answer a question, your resolves is to say, I can't answer that, not to dig deeper until you come up with an answer. You claim your god, science, can answer everything, then conclude that it can't. You debunk all of the scientist's (and one journalist's) theories and experiments with, "that's nonsense", and "that makes no sense", yea I'm hip. If I were as clueless as you, it would make no sense to me either, I mean that with all due respect. Until YOU come up with your OWN theories about these things, do your OWN research about these things, conduct your OWN experiments about these things and come up with some better than "I don't know, but that doesn't mean there is a God", then I will keep my faith, and you can continue to be clueless. My work is done here.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
" I challenge YOU to do your own homework on this. I have given you the framework. You can look up Heisenberg and Browne, and while you're at it, look up Quantum Balancing, and the Russian Science Experiment, The Double Slit Experiment and Volgelsang's Self Thinking Interface or STI device, and you will find your scientific proof there."

You challenge me to do my own homework on this, because let's face it...this argument makes no sense to you, either.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
Whether it came from a silly YouTube video or a silly blog, it's a stupid argument. "There are 4 primary attributes that describe what a god would be...If all 4 attributes are found in one force it would prove that God is real...first we have to find one force that is eternal." Then it goes into talking about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Then it says, "In Signal Travels Farther & Faster Than Light by Malcom W. Browne, a force was found connecting two freed electrons & proved to be eternal...YES 1 - Eternal force was found!"

WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE? Since when is God a "force"? I read Browne's article. What "force" is the video talking about, and how was it "proved to be eternal"? What the hell does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle have to do with anything? What's the point here...that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is God? HUP is a mathematical construct; not a force.

Whoever made this video is a quack.
Posted by Eyeofthebeholder 2 years ago
Your assumptions are wrong again. I DID NOT borrow my assertions from the website you claim. They borrowed THEIR assertions from this video . I listed the sources provided in that video as the authors of the information given. You feel that if you "think" you are right about something (even if you are dead wrong) then it "must be true". lol. At least you are entertaining.
You know what happens when people assume? Think about it. Happens every time.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
I am not "refusing" to answer any question. I have never hesitated to admit that there are mysteries that science has not yet solved. But, as Michael Shermer says, "the fact that we cannot fully explain a mystery with natural means does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this is a legitimate mystery in science: "What is holding man together?" My answer is, I don't know. The fact that I do not know the answer to this question does is not IN ANY WAY evidence of God or ANY supernatural being WHATSOEVER.
Posted by Eyeofthebeholder 2 years ago
When you tell me why a designed has to have a designer, I will tell you why a universe has to have a Creator. You're talking about a physical universe, bound by laws of space, time etc. vs a spiritual being that is bound by NONE of these laws or principles and hence your inherit lack of understanding about those things which exist outside of the physical, material universe has made you faithless. Yet you STILL refuse to answer all of those question I posed, one being, why science has "theorized" that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, or what is holding man together. Talk me about those first before trying to convince me of your superior intellect regarding anything else. "Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools". Romans 1:22
Posted by Eyeofthebeholder 2 years ago
My hot headed little friend Heirio, you don't HAVE to be a "Christian" to believe in God. Belief in God is a FAITH not a RELIGION. Learn the difference before you try to call someone a liar, you make yourself look both ignorant and unnecessarily belligerent. The debate isn't with you anyway. Read the FULL context of both Einstein's and Sagan's perspectives and get back to me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.