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

a simple argument for God's existence

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,015 times Debate No: 55701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




the law of thermodynamics says energy is always breaking down from higher states. that means, if you take things back further and further in time, something must have caused the highest energy level after the big bang. we could call that unknown, God. a reason why we might call it that, is because the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it, the law of thermodynamics.

thermodynamics, as we know it, basically negates the idea that there is something in our physical universe that goes on and on back infinitely. there can be no infinite beginning, because there is no infinite end. we see an end point coming. that means there must be a finite beginning.

this acknowledges that there could be other naturalistic explanations. nothing has to be definitively proven for it to be a proof.
and, given what we know, the fact that there is something rather than nothing, combined with the issue with thermodynamics, both seem supernatural, cause they do not accord to our rules as we now them. sure there are many fancy footed lousy ways to 'define' God into existence where it isn't appropriate. but at least here, but definiing it that way at least has some substantiation to it.


I accept your challenge. First up, we have thermodynamics.

If you cannot read that, then don't talk about thermodynamics.

I can't disprove the existence of god, because disproving a negative is impossible. I could tell you there is a twenty foot tall giant sitting right next to you but you couldn't see it, and it only speaks telepathically, and you could not disprove my statement. God is a negative, just like:
All of these things you cannot disprove.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1


just because i dont understand the extensive mathematical details of thermodynamics by no means i or others are not equipped enough to talk about it. to be sure, there's always someone who understands it more than another. that doesn't mean only the best versed in it is equipped to talk about it. even that one person doesn't understand it all.
anyways, this is an extremely weak argument on your part.

no one said you had to disprove the existence of God, so we can just move on from that point.

what about the essence of my debate, that something from nothing doesn't accord with laws as we understand them? and of course, you need to address the thermodynamics points per 'seeming supernatural'.


Well first of all, this is thermodynamics. These are the laws set forward for the from of energy known as heat, this isn't biology. Energy doesn't really cross over into biology. Plus, if you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, then don't talk about them. It's that easy. You can't really point out the holes in the Bible until you read it.

"the fact that there is something rather than nothing, combined with the issue with thermodynamics, both seem supernatural..."
Oh yes, something rather than nothing. Really is gorgeous, isn't it.

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. Certainly these unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, greater scientists than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of those stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."

-Richard Dawkins

But there is nothing supernatural about it. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point, but I do not see anything "supernatural" about the fact that we exist. Amazing yes, supernatural, no.
Debate Round No. 2


con simply insists that i can't argue about thermodynamics cause i don't know it as extensively as seasoned theoreticists. this ignores that eeryone is ignorant to some degree as argued before, cant they still argue about it even if they are the most versed in it?. and to argue the point better.. have you taken advanced classes in logic? i can provide some complex rules and symbols involved there, and you wouldn't understand it. doest hat mean you can't engage in basic logic skills? no, that it a ridiculous conclusion.
most people know the 'disproving a negative' issue in logic, so we should be free to explore it. of course, con misapplied that logic when it wasn't even an issue, but that's beside the point. hopefully it will be considered in the voting etc though. he's ignoring that point now, so i would suppose he concedes he jumped the gun.
that, and the bickering about not being able to talk about thermodynaimcs, he's turning this into a side show debate, not quite about semantics, but about issues other than the issues at heart.

con admits it seems amazing that we exist. why is it amazing? not just cause we are the few that exist when it's next to infinitely possible that we didn't in terms of probabioity between potential and acutal. it's amazing because we don't know anything to come from nothing. i admit at the quantum level, sometimes that happens, but there was somethingat the quantum level to beging with for us to look at. and even quantum occurrings don't explain how matter in its none quantum formcame into being.
you dont have to call it supernatural if you dont like the connotaions to that term. but really, it says it ebst. it defies nature as we know it. you can quibble if it should be considered part of nature, and not supernatural, but i choose to say supernatureal because it could be viewed that way given we dont know the rules that would explain it. it's at least, as of now, 'apparently supernatureal".

same thing could be said about thermodynaics, if only con would understand his fallacies there.


My excuse for insisting you can't talk about thermodynamics is that I'm very, very stubborn. Excuses aside, I stand by my point that thermodynamics and biology are mainly seperate divisions of science, and that theists should only use the thermodynamic argument as a last resort, because all atheists have heard it before.

"It's amazing because we don't know anything to come from nothing." Well, where did your god come from? Christians can only dream of where their god came from, but with the Hubble telescope, we can look extremely far back into the universe. Because the light farther away from us that is reaching us now is millions of years old, we can see almost billions of years back in the universe the farther we look. Science will have answers in the next two centuries, I guarantee it.

"If only con would understand his fallacies there."
I am a know-it-all atheist. I have no fallacies.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debate_power 7 years ago
Well, I thank you for your consideration, and atheists' beliefs don't offend me.
Posted by patrick967 7 years ago
Okay, I agree that my wording is a bit inappropriate. However, it embodies my beliefs (or disbelief), and honestly, I don't care who I offend or why. I offend people simply by being atheist.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
@ debate_power, perhaps Patrick is being completely and blatantly Honest.
He is possibly totally correct about the Bible.
Being honest about an opinion is not a bad thing.
Maybe you should debate Patrick on your contention with his profile statement??

If you consider the Bible historically and rationally, Patrick is indeed Correct!
Posted by debate_power 7 years ago
Oh, Patrick, I wanted to suggest something to you, but you aren't accepting messages or comments on your profile. The part where you believe that the Bible is a "load of ********?" Some, like me, might find that highly offensive. I'm just saying, a less offensive way to get your point across would be "I reject the teachings of the Bible" or something of that sort. Thank you for your consideration.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
dairygirl4u2c: Working in a dairy thermodynamics is quite evident, lots of hot water and in winter cold hands, the cows jump and kick if the hands or cups are too cold. Ouch, yes I've ducked a few kicks in my time in a dairy!
One of our neighbors died in his dairy when a young first time heifer launched a kick to his head.
Possibly due to thermodynamics, his assistant thinks he didn't warm his hands and they were too cold for the inexperienced heifer.
Older cows get used to it, but we always warmed our hands for the new ones so it feels more like a suckling calf.
Just thought I'd link your name to thermodynamics.

Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
The Thermodynamics argument is fallacious and appearing supernatural to humans is not evidence of a God, but evidence of a lack of understanding of Thermodynamics.
Thus constituting an argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

Just as Japanese when first confronted with a tsunami thought they were evidence of the supernatural, and once argued that tsunamis were evidence for God, until they become accustomed to them and realized they could sense them coming by natural movements of fish and dolphins plus the extremely calm almost frozen still tide near the beach and realized they are results of natural movements.

Same as ancient Greeks and humans for thousands of years thought that lightning was supernatural until cloud movement and static electricity was understood.
They used to argue that Lightning was evidence for God.

They were all Argument From Ignorance Fallacies that have vanished with time and knowledge that dispels the ignorance.
Someday all the aspects of thermodynamics in the universe may be explained and the use of thermodynamics as evidence for God will be eradicated, just as the use of lightning as evidence for God has been eradicated by exposing the ignorance.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 7 years ago
i didnt say that thermodynaics is supernatural. i said that the fact that something could reach that intiitial highest energy potential, appears supernatural.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Fallacies abound.
There are many natural explanations for the universe which demonstrate an infinite prior existence.
Posted by Burncastle 7 years ago
There is nothing "supernatural" about the laws of thermodynamics. And energy is not "breaking down", whatever that means.

"We can call that unknown God" I almost laughed out loud when I read that; it is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy.

I agree that not understanding a theory completely does not mean that you can't talk about it, but you seem to know so little about it that I would indeed encourage to read a bit more before you use these laws as an argument.
Posted by madness 7 years ago
If something can't come from nothing and you claim your God came from nothing, that's probably because your God is nothing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: If Pro could only understand the fallacies within Pro's argument. Pro did not actually provide evidence for God's existence as it was Pro's BOP to do so. Pro forgets that our universe is only a single instance of a universe and there are likely an Infinite number of incidences of universes and likely an infinite number of universes existing in the Cosmos. No scientist believes something came from nothing so the Thermodynamics evidence is false as Con pointed out. Con's arguments were more rational and since nobody provided sources, those points are tied.
Vote Placed by Skynet 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I usually don't agree with dairygirl on much on this site, but her argument seems valid enough to be debated. Instead of debating the topic of whether or not the current Universe points to a beginning beyond the capabilities of what we currently observe, Con retorted that: You can't disprove the existence of God (Not Pro's argument), You can't talk about something unless you understand it to Con's satisfaction, The superiority of modern space telescopes over the Bible. Deflective and off topic. While Pro didn't do THE best job framing the argument, she had to spend most of the time trying to get her opponent back on topic, so Con never forced her to do so. Con basically accepted the debate then refused to debate it.

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