The Instigator
ganky6
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points

Proof of God

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  
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: 10/26/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,157 times Debate No: 118723
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (98)
Votes (0)

 

ganky6

Con

I'm open to the idea that a God exists, But because of a lack of evidence, I am not convinced that there is a God. Is there any good demonstrable proof of God?

Pro

The first thing atheists tell me when I say that God exists is that no one can prove it. This is partially correct because we cannot see physical signs of him. That does not mean however that there aren't good arguments for him. I will give a few of them here.
The first is the argument from design. When you look at the world around us, You see the complexity of it. Take DNA. It contains the amount of information equivalent to 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica's put together. Every life form on this earth has them. Without a God, In the equation, Then it all must have come from nothing. But if it takes a very smart person-years to put together even one, Then wouldn't there have to be an even more intelligent person to put together 1000 sets of encyclopedia's in the first one-celled animal. Or did it all just come together from an explosion, Also known as the big bang? If so, That is an awful lot to be arranged perfectly from a single explosion. As a matter of fact here are some probabilities of it coming together from actual material.
1. The chance of life forming from non-life is 1 in 10 to the 40, 000th power. That is 10 with 40, 000 zeros after it
Source: https://www. Scienceforums. Net/
Source: www. Ideacenter. Org/contentmgr/showdetails. Php/id/740

2. The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion
Source: https://blogs. Plos. Org/

3. The chance of a simple protein coming from dead matter is 1 in 1. 28 with 10, 175 zeros after it
Source: http://www. Creationstudies. Org/

4. The chance of the earth by itself coming into existence from nothing is 1 in 700 quintillion
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

5. "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, Knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway"
Even in a billion years, That's never going to happen
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

Another thing about evolution. What about mutualism? Mutualism, Is a relationship between two organisms where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible. If mutualism is that complicated, Can you even imagine the rest of the world? How can it be chance? How can it all come from an explosion that I don't even believe to be possible. Nothing cannot produce something so I don't see how this explosion could have occurred. This world calls for an intelligent designer, Not chance.
My second argument is the argument from motion. According to Isaac Newton's first law of motion everything that is in motion will stay in motion until acted on by another force. At the same time, Nothing will ever be in motion until acted on by another force. In other words if anything is in motion, There must be a force that causes it to do so. This law completely contradicts the idea that there is no God. You see, Everything in this world is in motion. Because nothing can set itself in motion, There must be an outside force that is the result of all motion today. Because God is all powerful he can do anything and therefore does not need to be set in motion and is the only thing that can be the root cause of all motion today. Otherwise, Isaac Newton is wrong.
My third argument. How does matter arise to make this whole scenario possible in the first place? The big bang is bound by some very important scientific laws. The law of conservation of energy, The law of conservation of mass, The law of biogenesis, And Newton's first law of motion. All 4 of these scientific laws and the big bang cannot be true at the same time because they are contradictory. The Big bang is believed to be the result of all energy and mass but the law of conservation of mass says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. You believe in the big bang theory but the Big bang itself is a theory and according to the scientific method, A scientific law has so much more credibility then a theory. So, In this case, In order to believe in the big bang theory, You are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data while ignoring the MOST reliable data. Not good scientific practice.
My third argument is the cosmological argument. Here is what it states:
P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence
P2 Because the universe exists, It must have a cause of existence
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force
P4 That outside force is God
P5 God created the universe
C God exists
I will probably get lots of questions on this particular argument which I will answer in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
ganky6

Con

thanks for accepting.

"Argument from Design"
We recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs.
A building requires a builder, A painting requires a painter, Creation requires a creator. I agree on all point.
How did you determine it was a building? How did you determine it was a painting? How did you determine it was a creation?
When you talk about the universe, Labeling it a creation in order to claim that there is a creator, Is a dishonest apologetic. It is a circular argument, Where you are injecting the very thing you are trying to proof, Right in the beginning.
When you say "This had to have been designed", What you are saying is, It is not possible or not probable for this particular set of circumstances, To come about by natural means.
How did you determine that?

The "What are the odds" argument
With respect to the universe. . . What are the odds?
When we are talking about odds and probability we are talking about a ratio (or comparison) of favorable results to possible results.
As far as I can tell, This is something you can't calculate.
How do you know that this isn't the only possible universe?
How do you know that the mechanisms by which universes come into being, Can produce anything other that the universe we are living in?
You have to assume that there are other possibilities in order to calculate the odds other than 100%.
We don't know enough about the universe and how it was formed to be able to make a determination about what other universes are possible. What other universes can be produced by the mechanism because we don't fully understand that mechanism.

What about the multiverse?
Maybe there are billions of universes where there are intelligent beings trying to calculate the odds that a universe like theirs would come into existence? But the mistake there is that they also think that their universe is the only favorable result when in reality there are billions of universes that are the favorable result that produce intelligent life that are capable of asking the question, What are the odds that a universe could exist.
But for the sake of argument let's say you are able to calculate the odds.
No matter what number you come up with, What you are saying is that the odds of a universe like ours coming to existence by natural means, Is so improbable that it is more probable that the universe came into existence by supernatural means.
How did you calculate that. How did you determine the probability of supernatural means?
If you are going to calculate the probability of something based on the possible outcomes and its relationship to the favorable outcomes, How many possible supernatural causes do we know of? None
How could you say that the supernatural cause is more probable than a natural one? No matter how improbable it seems, It's still on firmer footing than a supernatural cause

"Chance of simple protein"
I understand that you can't accept the odds for a simple protein evolving to a more complex structure, Because then you are accepting the theory of evolution by natural selection and that is something you won't do. If your goal is to undermine a existing scientific model, You have a lot of work to do. But if you have a cometing model and you throw out everything that might lead you to the other conclusion, You are now engaged in a biased persuit of an explanation. You are asserting that evolution by natural selection did not happen or could not happen and you are trying to prove that. And by doing so you're ignoring some of the observations that lead to that conclusion.

"Evolution"
"The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, Knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway"
Even in a billion years, That's never going to happen"
That is just wrong. Evolution is little change over time, Which happens constantly, Therefore it is true.

"Big Bang"
"You believe in the big bang theory but the Big bang itself is a theory and according to the scientific method, A scientific law has so much more credibility then a theory. So, In this case, In order to believe in the big bang theory, You are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data while ignoring the MOST reliable data. Not good scientific practice. "

A law is an observation. A theory explains the theory. A law can not change, A theory can change.
I think a theory has more value than a law. A law has no explanatory power

1. A law is an observation; a theory is the explanation of that observation.
2. A theory requires experimentation under various conditions. A law has no such requirements.
3. A theory may become obsolete with time. This is not the case with a law.
4. A theory can be replaced by another better theory, However, This never happens with a law.
5. A theory may be strong or weak according to the amount of evidence available. A law is a universally observable fact.

"Cosmological argument"
P1: everything that exists has a cause of existence
Here i already disagree. Because we have no data of something coming into existence without a cause, Doesn't mean it can't happen. For instance a black swan. Just because we haven't seen one, Doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Pro

Thank you con for your response.

Alright, I am going to simplify your argument into these two contentions.

1. Odds of this universe existing cannot be calculated.
2. Odds of a supernatural being existing cannot be calculated

There are of course other things that you brought up which I will address later.

You said in your first contention that it is impossible to calculate the probabilities of this universe existing because there is no way to know if it is the only possible universe. But the thing is, Without a God the world is made up of only natural laws. Chemistry, Physics, Etc. These are based off of probability and it can be measured, Contrary to what you said.
https://chem. Libretexts. Org/Textbook_Maps/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Physical_Chemistry_(McQuarrie_and_Simon)/MathChapters/B%3A_Probability_and_Statistics

Your second major contention deals with the assumption that the odds of a supernatural being cannot be calculated. I agree with you, I am not saying these arguments calculate the probability of a supernatural creator. What I am saying is that it shows how ridiculous it is to believe that natural laws, Chemistry, Physics, Etc. Can be the result of it. So if something finite cannot be the result of this universe, Then maybe someone infinite (God), Intelligent (God), Beyond this universe, (God) maybe, Just maybe might have been the result of it.

Now I am going to address a few of the side claims that you have made.

You said that there is no way to determine complicated things from non-complicated things. This simply is not true. The more features and steps something has, The more complicated it is. Take DNA. It has more information than a stack of books 500 times the distance from the earth to the moon. That's complicated.

You also said that the theory of evolution is something I will never accept. I've never been asked to justify this theory because that isn't what the resolution asks me to do. But furthermore, I could turn that same quote back around on you and say you will never accept God. I would also like to point out that God and evolution are not contradictory. God could have created life using evolution.
I understand that there is evidence for evolution but if you have another debate with me you will understand why I don't believe it. But then again, That isn't what this debate is about.

A scientific law is not an observation. That's the very beginning of it. A law is based off of years and years of evidence. A theory is only based off of some evidence. Thus, If you believe a theory that contradicts 4 laws, It really doesn't make sense.

You said you dis-agree with the first premise of the cosmological argument but you haven't given any example of when something has existed without a cause.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
ganky6

Con

"Without a God the world is made up of only natural laws. Chemistry, Physics, Etc. These are based off of probability and it can be measured, Contrary to what you said. "

What I said is basically. . . We have 1 universe that we know of. In order to calculate the probability of something, We need to have more than 1. You need to be able to compare it to something.
Flip a coin. Heads or tails. Probability it will be heads is 50%. Now lets say the coin only has one side and there is only the option heads. What is the probability that it will be heads? 100% because that is the only outcome.
Same as the universe. We have exactly one universe that we know of. Therefore, Its probability is 100%.

"Your second major contention deals with the assumption that the odds of a supernatural being cannot be calculated. I agree with you, I am not saying these arguments calculate the probability of a supernatural creator. What I am saying is that it shows how ridiculous it is to believe that natural laws, Chemistry, Physics, Etc. Can be the result of it. So if something finite cannot be the result of this universe, Then maybe someone infinite (God), Intelligent (God), Beyond this universe, (God) maybe, Just maybe might have been the result of it. "

Something so improbable doesn't mean impossible.
And the assertion that God might have done it, Needs demonstration of at least its existence. And if he exists, That still doesn't mean he created it all.

"You said that there is no way to determine complicated things from non-complicated things"
I don't think I have mentioned that anywhere, But please point out where I might have said that.

"You also said that the theory of evolution is something I will never accept. I've never been asked to justify this theory because that isn't what the resolution asks me to do. But furthermore, I could turn that same quote back around on you and say you will never accept God. "
Evolution is a fact. Little things change over time. I don't know why this is something debatable.

And turning it back on me that I will never accept God is just false and dishonest.
Never have I mentioned that God doesn't exist. My position is, Because of lack of evidence brought forth by theists, I remain unconvinced. This does not mean "There is no God".
It means that you haven't presented enough evidence.
And for you to point out that God and evolution are not contradictory, When you are the one bringing up evolution in your 1st comment, Is a bit odd.
I'm not saying that "evolution is a fact, Therefore God does not exist". And also when evolution turns out to be wrong, This doesn't prove there is a God.

"A scientific law is not an observation. That's the very beginning of it. A law is based off of years and years of evidence. A theory is only based off of some evidence. "
Again I disagree on this. A scientific law IS a description of an observation (and according to you at the beginning). It is the theories that explain the law. And if there is a consensus on the theory, There is an explanation for that law. But the law still remains the observation but now backed up by evidence and an explanation.
Therefore I hold more value to the theory than the law.

"You said you dis-agree with the first premise of the cosmological argument but you haven't given any example of when something has existed without a cause. "

Here you are just trying to shift the burden of proof. I don't need to give an example when something has existed without a cause. I think my explanation would be enough, But since it is not I will post it again.
Because we have no data of something coming into existence without a cause, Doesn't mean it can't happen.
What I also can do is the same thing about God.
Because we have no data or evidence that a God exists, Doesn't mean he is not there. It's the same argument.
I'm not claiming "God doesn't exists". All I'm saying is that I am unconvinced because of a lack of demonstrable evidence.

For that same reason I also disagree with premise 3
"Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force"
How do you know nothing can not produce something? Just because we haven't witnessed it, Doesn't mean it is impossible.

And btw. . . Premise 4?
P4 That outside force is God
How do you know it is God? How do you know it is not a rainbow colored unicorn?

Pro

I'm so sorry but I've been busy these past few days. If there is anything you want to add, Go ahead. I will address everything in the final round
Debate Round No. 3
ganky6

Con

Well. . . I can add some more stuff but since you have been busy it"s not fair I think.

So just answer my last post.
But maybe start answering this question first, And then the rest:
"Why do you believe"? (And this is just a serious personal question and I hope to get a personal answer. . . Not something you have to google)
Debate Round No. 4
ganky6

Con

Well. . . I can add some more stuff but since you have been busy it"s not fair I think.

So just answer my last post.
But maybe start answering this question first, And then the rest:
"Why do you believe"? (And this is just a serious personal question and I hope to get a personal answer. . . Not something you have to google)
Debate Round No. 5
98 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
ganky6
Not one vote?
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
Oh jackie guess what I found? Since you have no knowledge of film, Or anything else, Especially anything that truly matters, Director Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Elysium, Chappie) he has a series of vignette short films on youtube called Oats Studios. Some of them are sci fi masterpieces, Some are or war, Some are commercials, Some are just pain awfully boring. At any rate jack since you do not take your god at his word, Perhaps you will with simpleton pictures as he has made 2 short films about your god. They are instant classics that are insightful, Truthful and hilarious. Just think jack, You might grow up a little in watching some pictures, You know like reading your Red and Blue books just like you do now, Because if your god is a god according to YOUR bible, These short films portray YOUR god with the hair under your chin nail biting accountability and accuracy.

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Q1_HfhtB5eo&t=53s - Oats Studios - Volume 1 - God: Serengeti
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=w4AGocVq7-w - Oats Studios - God: City
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
jackiebaby you don't debate with anyone.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
missmedic
thanks
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@missmedic- Hence why I don't debate with you
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
missmedic
Jackoffgilbert
practice what you preach, You presumptuous azzhole.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Anything you claim about my personal life has is irrelevant. You don't know me. Ask people who do.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
Which "atheist debates" are you referring to jackiebaby? Really, I'm curious.
"=How could I see that one coming? " That's an easy one, Because you are a LIAR, You may have possibly watched 3 - 5 minutes of one of them of that so it doesn't count and because you are 15 years old, Still stuck in high school, With a high school edumacation and intelligence, Oh I'm sorry jackiebaby you are homeschooled, With a cabbage batbrain of a simpleton 2 year old at best. That's how you saw that one coming. Its through utter B. S. Because indeed I do know that you are a compulsive liar and when exactly you are lying. You are NOT a complicated person jackiebaby and you are certainly very easy to figure out.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
There goes jackiebaby once again WOOF inventing excuses. Its a 100% guarantee, That if he comes across something he doesn't understand or cannot explain he will do the same ole crap and B. S. That he's done in a multitude of his other debates and this ignorant sac of odiferous pus will invent the excuse that he cannot continue or forfeit just like he always does. And then POOF within a week or two, Or perhaps three he will be back in action with the same old debunked snoring debate once again to deliberately entomb those who care about those who do not like to be p**sed off in their salad spinners by a person who does not have any genuine friends or loved ones and since he doesn't he loves to springboard negativity onto others and infuriate them. After all, And am repeating this ohhhhhhhhh so many times. . . Getting and receiving negative attention is better than getting and receiving no attention at all.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@Backwardseden- And those atheist debates you were talking about, I have one thing to say to them. They need to make them actual debates. They are all literally just atheists debating atheists. It's no longer a debate then, It's just 'oh let's just all get together and talk about how right we are. '

=How could I see that one coming?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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