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

Is God real

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for BabyBoyRyomaHoshi to post argument for round #4. If you are BabyBoyRyomaHoshi, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
00days04hours19minutes18seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,625 times Debate No: 118491
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

ThatGuyInTheSky

Pro

God. He was there when nothing wasn't. Science proves itself wrong. You think that something comes from nothing. That is illogical. There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist but there is proof that he does and you still think that he doesn't. If you do then at that point you are just being stubborn. Stephen Hawking's theory was that "space and time were no longer Absolute, No longer a fixed background to events. Instead, They were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, So it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, As was generally assumed before the 1920s, There would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back. Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial, In the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus it might be that the universe was created last year, But with all the memories and physical evidence, To look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, The positivist approach. In this, The idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, Only whether it works. A model is a good model if first, It interprets a wide range of observations, In terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, If the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation. " this is a word for word of Stephen Hawking's incorrect statements. Gravity he said created everything, But this is illogical as gravity has no supernatural aspects. Just gravity is gravity and nothing else the universe was created by something and gravity is nothing.
BabyBoyRyomaHoshi

Con

I feel like you and Jackgilbert would make good friends.

Anyway, Let's do this. "You think that something comes from nothing. " No I don't. The earth came from stars exploding, Which made, In the words of Bill Wurtz "rocks, Ice, And funny clouds. Like this ball of flaming rocks (Earth). Oh sh*t, We just got hit by another ball of flaming rocks. " The eventually, The entire world is an ocean. Point is, That's how Earth was made, God did not do anything.

"There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist" well, The proof that God doesn't exist is the "proof" that God does exist is incorrect.

"it might be that the universe was created last year, But with all the memories and physical evidence, To look like it was much older" the world ended in 2012 REEEEEEEEE. We have written, Video and photographic evidence that the world wasn't created a year ago.

Sources:

https://youtu. Be/xuCn8ux2gbs ('history of the entire world, I guess' by Bill Wurtz)

This argument is weak as f*ck but at least I know god isn't real.
Debate Round No. 1
ThatGuyInTheSky

Pro

To further elaborate on the "something comes from nothing", You can interpret that as saying we created God, But that is not how it is supposed to be interpreted. I am talking about the creation of the universe, And let me get started, It's a doozy.
Ok. So Einstein's theory was that displacement of spacetime is the cause of gravity and if you're confused with spacetime and what it is, They recently found this new particle called the Higgs boson. And this particle makes up the Higgs field which is essential. Anyways Einstein said that the displacement of spacetime is the cause of gravity, If this is the case, From the absence of gravity, Or the absence of spacetime, Must be pure gravity because of the law of flow. Things will go to the point of least resistance, And if there is nothing there to resist, That is the point of least resistance. So an absence of spacetime would be pure gravity. Black holes are an absence of space-time, Which is why absolutely nothing, Not even light, Can escape their pull. Also if the universe is all of space-time and the entire Higgs field all of space-time and matter everything, Then, Whatever"s outside of the universe must be an absence of spacetime. If that is the case then the universe is not expanding into the absolute void around it, It"s falling. Ok now think back to the beginning of time. We know that the universe has an age right. As far as we know it is 13. 8 billion years old. So 13. 8 billion years ago, The entire universe was reduced to a singularity. A particle that is smaller than the quark. However, If gravity is always working, I. E, If you jumped off a building your not going to fall 15 seconds later, You're going to fall immediately. And if gravity is always working, Then the singularity was always there. But there are people who try to say that the universe would have no age but it should be infinitely old. However it is not. As it has an age and that is 13. 8 billion years. And we're back at the "something can't come from nothing" statement. Now this is true because "something" would have to exist in order to cause itself to exist. And THIS is illogical, Because something other must have created the singularity. And that "something other" we observe, As God.
BabyBoyRyomaHoshi

Con

I didn't interpret it like that, I was also talking about the creation of the universe, I believe that was targeted to someone in the comment section but I felt like addressing it.

Now, The science stuff I obviously can't argue with. I write my arguments as I go and I don't exactly know how to put this into words. But, It isn't illogical I guess?

I mean, "God" technically came from nothing, But he doesn"t exist. I wanna turn back to Bill Wurtz (slightly obsessed)

So, Quarks are made of protons and neutrons, Add electrons and "congratulations, Now the world is a bunch of gas. " It gets closer together for about 500 million years and a star is made. They explode. Bigger stars explode with Passion and make some cool space dust. Now a bunch of elements exist. Then we get to the funny clouds and balls of flaming rocks.

But yeah, Something does not come from nothing. It's not illogical.

~~~extra stuff that's not part of my argument~~~

I thought of giving Bill's sources instead of just using his video as gospel but I don't see his sources in the description of his video. If you go to his website, Billwurtz. Com, And then hit expert mode, Go to 5. 10. 17 titled 'the history of the entire world, I guess', It takes you here https://billwurtz. Com/history-of-the-entire-world-i-guess. Html. For those who don't want to click, It says the title again and then two links. One to watch on youtube and one to download the video. So yeah, I'm just gonna take his wurtz for it.
Debate Round No. 2
ThatGuyInTheSky

Pro

Ok, Now I am just going to go with how I think of this. What I have said is what I have learned. This argument is going to be short and sweet. And I'm done with creation. Onto evolution. So this is where a lot of people have controversy over. Some people think that evolution is a thing, And I think that it is. And this is because we don't know how many times god created man except for one specific case, This is Adam and Eve. God hadn"t created time until we sinned so it could have been thousands of years before he created Adam and Eve, Because time was nonexistent
BabyBoyRyomaHoshi

Con

Well, Say that Adam and Eve was real, Time was still existent they just weren't aging. Time was still passing, It would have still existed, They just didn't age. So that isn't really proof that god is real.

Also, Evolution still could have happened whether or not god is real. If god isn't real, Then they evolved from you already know the argument. If god did exist (which he didn't(I have to throw that in because this argument looks neutral as f*ck)), He put some creatures on earth and then they changed to their environment.

So therefore, I don't see hoe this argument proves god is real.
Debate Round No. 3
ThatGuyInTheSky

Pro

If we are thinking about the evolution of humans, Then how do we know that Adam and Eve are even modern humans? Who's to say that they aren't early humans that are closer to the "ape/monkey stage" of humans. And even so, How do we know that we even were related to monkeys (please don't reprimand me on that last one). And I've watched all those documentaries about how we think evolution went down but what if we were wrong. . . ( V5;ಠ B2;Q5; V5;ಠ)
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
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThatGuyInTheSky 5 days ago
ThatGuyInTheSky
both in the comments and the argument
Posted by ThatGuyInTheSky 5 days ago
ThatGuyInTheSky
oof i just got burned
Posted by Im_Intelligent 5 days ago
Im_Intelligent
And even if i am completely wrong in my reasoning and the universe irrefutably had a beginning, That doesn't mean that cause and effect were the same at beginning of the universe, And furthermore if we cannot figure this out what gives pro the intellectual high ground to stick his god there and be like "i know the answer".

Often times when dealing with people like pro, I encounter a similar situation, They often lead the evidence to there own preferred conclusion rather then following it, They seem to be unaware of the true extent of what we have actually figured out and have evidence for, And probably the worst of all, They don't seem to understand that their own ignorance of something be it the subject or evidence is not evidence against something they are trying to prove or disprove, This often led to debates where 90% of my time was spent educating my opponent on what the facts actually are rather then actually debating the subject at hand, This was only amplified when these opponents proceeded to ignore anything anyone told them and proceeded to continue use of their faulty understanding of the subject or subjects, Which makes me wounder why they even wanted to debate at all.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 5 days ago
Im_Intelligent
Pro invokes a classic go to argument for both Christians and creationists alike "You cannot get something from nothing, Its illogical" but of course pro immediately proceeds to special plead god from the same logic he using to prove his point. Often the rebuttal they will give when pointed out on their failed attempt at special pleading is to say "God is eternal and therefor does not need a creator" well then why not save yourself an entire leap in logic and conclude that in some form or shape the universe is eternal? General relativity tells us that the way things are observed is subjective to the entity that is observing it or acting apon that given space and time, So it could be possible that the universe is an infinite expanse of both space and time without a beginning or end and that the universe in which we observe is just a recent event of this infinite expanse, Of course this is just speculation based on what we currently understand and observe, But it saves an entire unevidented leap in logic to an eternal being as pro seems to propose, And pathetically i might add as well.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 5 days ago
Im_Intelligent
You know that video where AVGN gets pissed off reviewing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

I got a pretty similar feeling reading pros opening argument, Except instead of AVGN its me, And instead of a shitt* game its a shitt* argument.

Long story short, This debate is an intellectual failure on pros part.
Posted by ThatGuyInTheSky 6 days ago
ThatGuyInTheSky
Lol over 1000 people i just have to say. . . SUBSCRIBE TO LITCHMICH
Posted by ThatGuyInTheSky 6 days ago
ThatGuyInTheSky
also i have to do it for a class. Ugh
Posted by ThatGuyInTheSky 6 days ago
ThatGuyInTheSky
sorry if it was weak. I am basing my hypothesis off of what i know
Posted by EggnaMode 6 days ago
EggnaMode
Hey, Would you like to add to my debate? I believe you said you would if you remembered: https://www. Debate. Org/debates/One-in-Five-Women-Have-Been-Raped-Is-Bogus/1/
Posted by ThatGuyInTheSky 6 days ago
ThatGuyInTheSky
Lol i have been told that me and jack gilbert would be good friends
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.