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

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  
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: 5/21/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,136 times Debate No: 114138
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)



For the first round please just accept the debate. Arguments will begin next round.


I accept! Proud atheist here.
Debate Round No. 1


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. There is a reason why we don't see signs of him which I will go into in a minute. But atheists seem to think that because we cannot see him means he doesn't exist. But gravity, wind, and atoms can't be seen, so does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. That argument presented by atheists is flawed. The next thing I get from atheists is that we have proof of atoms, gravity, and wind, yet we have no proof of God. Well, there is a reason for this. Christianity is the religion I believe in and it is 100% a faith-based belief. And well, if we had piles of evidence for him, would it then still be faith-based? Faith is the belief in the unseen but if we see God, then we no longer believe in God by faith. As a matter of fact, if we had piles of evidence for him, then everyone would believe in him and therefore be saved, which again contradicts the Bible and what Christians believe.
But back to my point of there being good cases for God. There are many of them but for the first round, I will go into three of them.
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

2. The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion

3. The chance of a simple protein coming from dead matter is 1 in 1.28 with 10,175 zeros after it

4. The chance of the earth by itself coming into existence from nothing is 1 in 700 quintillion

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

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 DNA 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 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.
So tell me, If God does not exists, then give me a step by step explanation of how the universe was created from nothing.


You are correct, nobody can prove the existence of God. That strongly suggests that He/She/It/They do not exist. Your metaphor about wind, gravity, ect is flawed. We can see the direct effects that gravity and wind have on the world. When you drop something, it falls. We know this is because of gravity. But you can't so easily trace anything back to God. Your whole argument about Christianity being a faith based religion is also clearly false. I agree that Christianity is based on faith, but believing in something does not make it true.

It's true that DNA is complicated. This is the result of little bits of complexity being added on over and over again, until it reaches the massive complexity is is today. It is a process taking billions of years. And the first single-celled creature wasn't that complex. It likely didn't have DNA. It was relatively simple, as you'd expect from something that just rose from the primordial ooze. It didn't come from the Big Bang, I don't know where you're getting that from. The Big Bang created a massive soup of particles, which clumped together and spread apart for billions of years until they eventually ended up in the universe we have today.

Now let's look at the statistics you provided. Leaving aside the question of whether they're accurate, we have to remeber that our world is probably the one in a million.

"The chance of life forming from non-life is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power." Right. We're that 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. We have a sample size of one here. There are probably 400000 planets without life out there. We're just on the one that does have life.

2: " The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion" It's the same thing here. We're in that one universe that does exist. Maybe ther e are 400 quadrillion universes that don't exist. We're jus

3, 4 and 5: First off, the above arguments apply here too. Second, your sources are biased. All these sites are simply pseudoscience, using faulty logic (if any at all) to make a point that doesn't need to be made. Their authors have no credentials. Find some unbiased sites and send me links from there

Next, on your argument about mutualism. Here's how this symbiotic relationship came about. The sweetlips evolved teeth. The teeth rotted eventually, but they still gave the sweetlips an advantage. Meanwhile, most wrasse avoided the sweetlips. But some began cleaning the sweetlips's teeth. The ones who cleaned the teeth were the most successful, so they reproduced more, and the behavior spread across the population. Here are some more links for how evolution works.

Next, you argue that Newton's law of motion proves that God exists. However, this doesn't check out. The force that resulted in motion was the Big Bang. All matter in he universe being flung out in a massive explosion would tend to produce motion. Next.

Your next argument is more or less the same. The Big Bang started the universe. We're not exactly sure how it happened. We have only recently discovered that it happened at all. I can't give you a step-by-step explanation of how the Big Bang happened because we do not know. Science does not claim to have the answers for everything. It only claims that the answers are out there. Something caused the universe. God is not one of those, it just doesn't fit the data.

One common argument against science is that it removes the wonder from everything. This could not be further from the truth. On a cosmic scale, humans are microbes on a speck of dust orbiting a spark, in the middle of a vast emptiness. There are more stars then we have numbers. With the massive complexity and sheer scale of the universe, it is clear that it was not created for us. It may be disconcerting to think that the story of the universe is not about us, but that gives us so much freedom. There is nothing stopping us from delving into the deepest secrets of the universe, and using them to create a utopia in the stars.There is so much that we have discovered about our wonderfully complex universe, and so much more that we have left to discover. We must accept that there are things we don't know, and work to figure them out. We have only just started to shine a light into our close neighborhood, and what we have discovered has amazed us. it's impossible to predict what we might find out there. But past experience suggests that it will be beyond our wildest dreams.
Debate Round No. 2


Let me begin by saying that science can't prove anything, so that is what I mean when I say God can't be proven. Before I dive into my real argument, let me address something. The chance of life forming is i in 10 to the 40,000 power. That isn't 40,000. That is 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. A lot more than what you said in your argument.
"It's true that DNA is complicated. This is the result of little bits of complexity being added on over and over again until it reaches the massive complexity is is today."
Although this seems logically sound, reality is just a bit more complex then that. Consider this example. If a first grader wrote a story and added to it year after year, it would never reach the quality of a 12th grader. No matter how hard they tried, no matter how long they work on it, it will never get passed the first grade quality. It's the same thing with life forms. They are so incredibly complex to come across by chance. DNA for example contains the amount of information equivalent to 1000 sets of encyclopedias put together. No matter how many chance chemical reactions there are, this complexity will never arise.
"And the first single-celled creature wasn't that complex. It likely didn't have DNA. It was relatively simple,"
For one this is a sheer leap of faith and has no real evidence to back it up. Second, it can't be true which I will go into in a minute. Third, The first criteria of life is that all life forms contain DNA. If it doesn't contain DNA, then it is not living. If it doesn't reach any of the four criteria of life, then it scientifically classified as not alive. Now back to my other point. It is impossible for it to be true because all life forms must have proteins which are formed by protein synthesis. But protein synthesis CANNOT occur without DNA.
Now to your next argument. You are basically saying that because there are so many universe's out there, there is bound to be one that contains life. This is called the many worlds hypothesis and it is flawed for a few reasons. One, this type of reasoning can be used to explain any coincidence in the world. For instance, imagine this type of behavior going on in Poker.
If you were playing at a table with someone who kept dealing themselves four aces, why would you suspect them of cheating? Isn't there an infinitely large number of poker games going on? There's bound to be a game or two where this is happening.
Although the reasoning at first glance sounds logical, it is paradoxically self defeating. Now to my second point against it. If life were to originate, it could not have originated on this earth. One of the key requirements in the formation of life is that there is no oxygen. Sources suggest however that way back then, the earth was rich in oxygen. If life formed anywhere, it could not have formed on this earth.
Now to mutualism. Even if some wrasse avoided the sweetlips, the ones that did perform mutualism would have to develop the instinct to swim in the sweetlips mouth at the same time the sweetlips teeth evolved. In that same time the sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out the wrasse. No matter how many tries you give it, Even in a million years, this will never happen.
Now to Newton's first law of motion. You suggested that the Big Bang is the result of all motion. I then am going to ask you what set the Big bang in motion. It can't set itself in motion. God is all powerful however and is not in need to be set in motion. But because everything in this universe is finite, it is still bound by motion.
Now to the Cosmological argument. If you tell me that the Big Bang started the universe, then I will ask you what caused the Big Bang. If God exists then he is the ultimate cause who created the universe.
Let me bring up a few more objections to the Big Bang theory. It breaks a few scientific laws. The law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass. Both say that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang is directly contrary to both of these as it is believed that the big bang CREATED all matter and energy.
Now to my final argument. It is the argument from a moral standpoint. If God does not exist, then who is the creator of moral law? If God does not exist then there is no moral law. So I will leave it at this. Why do you have morals, if God does not exist?


You start out claiming that science can't prove anything. But it can. That's what the scientific method is for: Proving things.

I realize I missed a couple zeroes with my argument about the probability of life arising. But my thesis still holds true. We are that 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000. In your argument about the first grader writing a story: Think about how that would work. As they add to the story, and go back and edit it, they will delete the bad writing and replace it with good writing. By 12th grade, little of the original writing would be left, and it would be a 12th grade quality story. Thank you for that wonderful example of how evolution works. The original single-celled organism did not have 1000 encyclopedias worth of data. It took billions of years of evolution to get to that point.

You are correct that the many-worlds style of thinking can be used to explain coincidences. At some point, somebody, during one of the billions of poker games played over the centuries, has drawn all aces. It would make sense if they were cheating, because cheating at poker is something that people do. But creating life is not a common occurrence. We're just the result of what may be the only time it has happened. There's just no reason to think it was caused by God.

You claim that life needs low oxygen to form. That is correct. The early earth was not rich in oxygen, it had very little in the atmosphere. But then algae started producing it, and the rest is history. Here's a link.

On our mutualism argument: Your only response here was that the two fish needed to develop the instinct to seek out each other. That is partially true, but misses the larger point. Here's how it happened.

Some wrasse began viewing the sweetlip's mouth as a potential food source, and the ones that did that were more successful, so they took over the one's that din't clean the sweetlip's teeth. The sweetlips didn't need to to start seeking out the wrasse for the wrasses to be capable of cleaning it's teeth, they were able to do that anyway. The sweetlips just started seeking out the wrasse after it was already cleaning it's teeth, and it was advantageous to do so. QED.

On your argument about the Big Bang: We don't know what caused the Big Bang. Science never claims to have all the answers. It just claims that they are out there. We may not know the answers to the central questions of the universe. But we know that they are out there. And we will find them, we just haven't yet. Same goes for the independent arisal of life.

Next, you ask what created moral law, if not God. Easy: There is no inherent moral law to the universe. That's basic nihilismAs the only sentient being we know, it is our duty as humans to create moral laws that best serve out purposes. This is what cultures around the world have been doing forever. And often through religion too. In my opinion, the only moral laws should be the following:

1: Do whatever is necessary to preserve human civilization, and avoid all actions that pose a significant threat to human civilization.
2: Do what will bring the most happiness to the largest number of people, unless this contradicts the first rule.
3: Have a basic respect for the rights, opinions, habits, inherent differences, and identities inherent in all humans, unless this would significantly contradict the First or Second rules.
4: Try to preserve the biodiversity of the Earth, and the happiness of all organisms capable of experiencing happiness.
5: Work to discover, invent, and create. Leave the world a better and more knowledgeable place then you found it.
Debate Round No. 3


You begin saying that life forms started out simple and got more complex along the way. In your next argument I would like for you to clarify exactly how the life form got more complex but that is aside from the point. There is no such thing as a simple life form and here is why. There are 4 criteria all life forms must meet. Even if one is not met, it is not a living thing. Here are the 4 criteria all life forms must meet.
1. All life forms contain DNA
You suggested that the first life form did not have DNA but if it doesn't have DNA, it is not alive. And if a life form contains DNA, then it contains the most complex thing in the universe. Too much, arguably, to have arisen by chance.
2. All life forms must reproduce.
This is a little more complex then it sounds. Reproduction is broken down into 2 major processes. Meiosis and Mitosis. Without EITHER of these, reproduction has been scientifically shown to be not possible. Although I would love to into them, it goes beyond 10,000 characters, so here is a link explaining it.
3. All life forms must have a method of extracting energy from their surroundings and converting it to energy they can use. For plants this process is called photosynthesis. This is a key feature of all life forms. Without it, they WILL NOT survive.
4. All life forms must sense and respond to those changes. For us, this is like realizing it is cold outside and going to a warmer place. Without this criteria, the "first organism" would not have lasted very long.

By the way, I gave a very simple example for each of these criteria. But believe me, there are much more complex ones.

In order for life to originate, these features must develop AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. Why? Because Without even one, the organism will not survive, Without reproduction the organism will not be able to keep it's species alive. Without DNA, the organism will not have a means of protein synthesis, which is essential in all life forms. Without a means of getting energy the organism will not be able to support it's daily life functions. Without a means to sense and respond to changes, there are about 100 life threatening scenarios and organism could face without a means of realizing it. They could die from heat, cold, suffocation, the list goes on and on. If you ask me, I don't even believe that one of the complicated processes could have come across by chance.
Don't you see? If even one does not develop at the same time as the rest, there goes the organism and the entire process starts all over again. There has to be 100 more chance chemical reactions to even have a shot at developing all four criteria at the exact same time. That's not to mention the other ESSENTIAL requirements for life. These include oxygen, nutrients, narrow range of atmospheric pressure, all of which have to be perfect for even a CHANCE of life arising from chemical reactions.
Obviously it is ridiculous to believe this all happens at the exact same time. But then again, that is what the atheist MUST believe.
Now to the matter portion of this. How does matter arise to make this whole scenario possible in the first place? As I said, 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 according to the scientific method 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 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.
Now to the mutualism portion of this. Even if the blue streak wrasse developed the instinct to seek out the sweetlips teeth for food, it would still have to develop that instinct at the same time the sweetips teeth evolved. On top of this the sweetlips would have to intuitively know what the wrasse was up to and not mistake it for a free meal. Even if this only has to happen once, it never will happen. This is not the only example of mutualism. There are millions of examples just like this that evolution can never hope to explain. Another example is between the blind shrimp and the goby. Because the blind shrimp cannot see, it often does not know if a predator is on it's way. The goby, however, has keen eyesight and is able to see if predators are coming or not. So, if it sees a predator, it will warn the blind shrimp and the blind shrimp will hide in it's hole. The goby benefits because all this time, the blind shrimp has been digging a whole for both him and the goby to hide in. So in exchange for being warned for predators, the blind shrimp provides a whole for the goby to hide in, protecting it from predators. Think about how evolution would have to explain this. The goby would have to develop the instinct to seek out the blind shrimp for protection against predators. The blind shrimp would also have to develop the instinct to seek out the goby, COINCIDENTALLY the fish with the keenest eyesight to look for predators. These instincts have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. Again, these are only 2 of millions of examples of mutualism. When the scientist looks at the world around him, he sees just one too many of these coincidences for evolution to be possible.
Now to my next argument. "science never claims to have all the answers. It just claims that they are out there. We may not know the answers to the central questions of the universe. But we know that they are out there. And we will find them, we just haven't yet."
If this is true then would it be fair to say that the answer to all the complexity of creation is God? If science does not know all the answers then why is God immediately ruled out? Are you absolutely sure that God does not exist? If not, then what is preventing you from trying to see the intelligent design in this universe?
Now to the morality portion of this.
"There is no inherent moral law to the universe" If this is true, then why do we despise Hitler for his actions? If there is no moral law, then tell me, would you be mad at someone who killed your loved one?
You provided some general rules but I highly doubt that everyone has those exact same values. I am sure that there are people in this world that believe murder is just fine. If no one has the exact same values, moral law does not exist. And if moral law does not exist, then everything is permissible. Murder, rape and torture without moral law would all be okay.

My whole overall argument breaks down to this. We are either here by a billion supernatural miracles, or we are here by one miracle and that is that God exists and he created the heavens and the earth. You choose.


I'm in over my head with the science argument. This is not a subject i am an expert on, and now that we're getting into the nitty-gritty of evolution, there are peole who can explain this much better than I can. I just put links with explanations.
Here is a link to an explanation of simple single-celled life.
Here is what DNA-less life looks like:

See, the first "life" likely stretched or even fell outside our current definition of "life". I am using that tern very loosely. Here's what the first life likely looked like.

And here's how life got here in the first place:
I don't know which of the theories here is true. We are only beginning to ask these questions, it makes sense that we don't have all the answers yet.

Here's a link to how scientists have proven that the Big Bang could have happened out of nothing:

Here's how mutualism evolved. It may have came from parasitism.

On our next argument. You say that the answer to all this complexity is God. But there's no data to support His/Her/Its/Their existence. Even if I'm wrong about all of these arguments. the answer still doesn't have to be God. You have not provided any evidence that your interpretation of God exists.

On our morals argument: We despise Hitler and hate it when people die because, we, as a species, have in large part decided that people dying is bad. I'm not saying there are no morals to life. I am saying that there are no INHERENT morals in life. Torture, murder, and rape are not okay because we, as a species, have largely decided that inflicting pain on others is bad. We did that. Nothing decided it for us.
Debate Round No. 4


I am not sure how you can expect me, as a 15 year old to be able to read and understand all of those sources. However, I spent a lot time reading and doing a bit of research and have rebuttals to your arguments.

"Here is a link to an explanation of simple single-celled life.;
This source can simply be ignored as it is from wikipedia where anyone can write anything.

"Here is what DNA-less life looks like:;
For one this website is making a bold leap of faith saying that this is what the first life form looked like. There is no real evidence that this life form existed or even could survive. It actually couldn't survive because all life forms MUST contain DNA in order to do a process called protein synthesis which is ESSENTIAL in all life forms. Even if you accept that the existence of DNA less life is possible, RNA is still extremely complex and simply CANNOT be the product of chance. Even if it did there are still 3 other criteria that the life form MUST develop AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. Reproduction, the ability to sense and respond to changes, and a method of getting energy. Not to mention the environment there must be in order for a chance of developing them. oxygen, nutrients, narrow range of atmospheric pressure, all have to be PERFECT for an unbelievably improbable chance for a single criteria to develop. As it can be seen that even without DNA, the chance of life arising is so ridiculously small to happen.

"And here's how life got here in the first place:;
This doesn't explain how life originated at all. It just says that because there MIGHT be billions of planets, life is bound to arise somewhere. First, If we were allowed to use this logic, we could explain away any coincidence that ever happened in this world. Imagine this behavior in a poker table. If I was playing poker with someone and they kept dealing themselves four aces they could simply say that because there are billions of poker games going on, there is bound to be some games where this happened. If this happened to you, would you really be stupid enough to play another game with this person? This type of reasoning is paradoxically self defeating and simply cannot be rationally affirmed.
Second, it only pushes the question back a notch. How did life arise elsewhere? No source has ever given a believable answer to this question.

"Here's a link to how scientists have proven that the Big Bang could have happened out of nothing:;
This source does not necessarily say the big bang came from nothing, but came from quantum fluctuations which are temporary changes in the amount of energy in space. But then again, if there was nothing, there is no energy making quantum fluctuations impossible. Some people might say that quantum fluctuations were how energy popped into existence from nothing in the first place. Again, no real evidence to back it up. In fact, then only available evidence we have is against it. The Law of Conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created.

"Here's how mutualism evolved. It may have came from parasitism.;
This only explains one example of mutualism. But what about all of the others? Not all examples of mutualism can easily evolve from parasitism.

Now to finish off evolution. In order for the first life form to create so many different species we see today, mutations must occur. People will say that because mutations are possible, fish can develop into birds. But it's just not that simple. Mutations for one are rare and 99% of the time delete information. But in order for a bacteria to develop into an elephant millions of mutations MUST occur and all must add information. But if a mutation that adds information to the genetic code is already rare, what makes you think that it would happen a million times in a row? This is just one of the many parts of evolution that are ridiculously improbable. But then again, evolutionists MUST believe that all of them happened.

Now to why I believe an intelligent designer is essential in creation. The three main arguments I have given are the cosmological argument, the argument from intelligent design, and Newton's first law of motion. All of these point to a God. All of these point to an intelligent designer who is the creator of the universe. If the big bang and evolution aren't true, which there is great reason to believe they aren't, then God must exist, there is simply no alternative.

Now to morality. You said that because everyone decided that murder rape and torture are bad, they are bad. I will ask you this. If everyone decided that murder is okay, would that justify the killing of your loved one?

Aside from morality, you either believe one of the two. We are here by a billion supernatural miracles, or we are here by one miracle and that is that God exists and he is the creator of the universe. If you believe we are here by a billion supernatural miracles, ask yourself, what is preventing me from rejecting God as the all powerful cosmic designer.


On the science argument: I'm also 15. (I told that I'm older so it won't bug me)I put the links because I was out of my depth with the science. So are you, apparently. For all we know we're taking the same classes. You were the one who brought up mutualism and the Big Bang and such.

If you don't like Wikipedia, here's a different link. This explains single-celled life, and explains how we evolved from it.
Direct quote from this: "The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis,""

You said DNA-less life was impossible, I gave you a link to how it's possible. I never said that was the original life.

Moving on to the arisal of life: Basically, your argument here is "coincidences don't happen". Out of the billions of poker games, there is going to be one where somebody keeps getting aces. If you check to make sure they're not cheating and find no evidence of it, just as we have found no evidence of God, then you have to conclude that it's just a very lucky coincidence.

On the Big Bang debate: As I said before, we don't know exactly how or why the Big Bang happened, we just know that it happened. Here's how:
We can clearly see that our universe began with a massive explosion. We don't know all the answers to everything yet.

The piece of mutualism in the Yale article was an example. There's no single way to explain all of mutualism.

With your mutation argument: Useful mutations are rare. But there are a lot of bacteria and protoplasms, and we have a lot of time.

All your arguments for God simply don't check out. They are either contradicted by observable evidence, or can be explained away with the massive number of plants in our universe, and lifeforms on our planet. If the odds of a protoplasm evolving into a human are 1 and 100 billion, and you have 100 billion protoplasms, then you will probably get a human.

Even if you're right about all the above, there's still no reason to say that the Christian God must be the one answer. We just don't know yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
voters note that my opponent added in an extra argument in the final round without giving me a chance to negate it.
Posted by Madvic 3 years ago
jackgilbert seems to be an amateur when it comes to debating God's existence. He also states a lot of stuff that can be easily refuted. One out of the many examples would be "Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter." this simply isn't true, that is what the study of abiogenesis is about, evolution does not talk about how life came around in the first place.
The argument from design can one again be debunked, if jackgilbert had searched up the flaws to such an argument he would not use it so blatantly. I suggest looking on here
Overall, I recommend Pro to do a little bit more research on the arguments that he is presenting as they are in super basic form and can be refuted easiy.
Posted by JeffreyJ.YoungTim 3 years ago
Check out my debate is the Book of Mormon reliable. Cast your vote please. Thank you.
Posted by JeffreyJ.YoungTim 3 years ago
Wow good debate, I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
Yeah you will get people who change the subject ... BUT what you WON'T get is someone who CAN SHOW a Scientist WHO CREATED a SINGLE LIVING BREATHING animal, or Plant or Grass, from ANY evolutionary experiment that was required to produce from NOTHING to a Living Breathing LIFE!

the primordial ooze thing .... never actually happened! Therefore no COMMON DESCENT huh?
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
1953 " Stanley L. Miller & Harold C. Urey,1953 " Rosalind Franklin,1958 " Meselson"Stahl ,1960 " B. F. Skinner's,1964 Theodosius Dobzhansky,1965 " Leonard Hayflick,1966 Richard Lewontin ,1968 Geerat J. Vermeij ,1971 John O'Keefe,1971 Stuart Kauffman,1972 Stephen Jay Gould,1973 Eric Charnov,1976 Richard Dawkins,1977 - Frederick Sanger,1978 Michael Ghiselin ,1983 " Kary Mullis,1985 Peter R. Grant, Nancy A. Moran,1988, Richard Lenski's,1995 - Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle ,1996 " Roslin Institute,1998, Theodore Garland, Jr,2001 " The first draft of the Human Genome Project ,2005 Jared Diamond,2005 " Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser,2006 - Shinya Yamanaka ,2008 Margie Profet ,2010 " J. Craigs, 2010 - The Neanderthal Genome Project,2011 Marc Hauser .

every one of these scientist has NEVER produced living creatures to prove Life CAN BE FORMED under any method. Check it for yourself! Bacteria, micro-organisms, amino acids, nothing ALIVE and breathing by ANY METHOD INCLUDING abiogenesis!

The World has believed a lie! 7.6 Billion people suckered by science. Wow, you would have thought SOMEBODY would have noticed they didn't create any REAL LIFE? Nope, we live in a World completely BLIND!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
"we cannot see physical signs of him."
That's False! you CAN see physical signs of Him. Everywhere you look you see LIFE!
What you don't know is that SCIENCE has proven that animal/Human/grass/tree/flowers CANNOT be produced by nature in or under any method. Every scientist FAILED to produce Living breathing life under ALL experiments! That means for LIFE to exist on the EARTH God (Super being) had to CREATE and PLACE life deliberately upon the Earth! That is FACT. to prove this true you may offer EVERY experiment done by Science. IF anyone pulls up these experiments they can see that only bacteria, micro-organisms, amino-acids were possible.

since none of these things gives BIRTH to young they are not LIFE. only life produces young. Babies seedlings grasses etc. I have personal reviewed all tests for accuracy. The Theory of any creature crawling out of primordial ooze is a LIE because to date Science has NOT created anything that CAN crawl out of a petri dish, much less ooze! Didn't happen. Darwin was wrong all along.

Science has no proven accidently that LIFE is incapable of forming under any natural way! IT MUST BE CREATED to exist!
we exist, therefore we WERE in fact CREATED and Placed here, since we cannot be FORMED by nature!
as to HARD SCIENCE evidence? Look at ANY EXPERIMENT from ANY of the Following Scientists and SEE their Failure to produce libving air breathing walking, crawling Life!
or just go here:

1858 Alfred Russel Wallace,1859 " Charles Darwin,1861 " Louis Pasteur,1863 " Gregor Mendel,1892 " Dmitri Ivanovsky,1915 J. B. S. Haldane ,1928 " Griffith, 1928 " Alexander Fleming,1943 " Oswald Avery,1944 " Barbara McClintock ,1950 Soviet biologist Georgy Shaposhnikov,1951 " George Otto Gey ,1952 " Alfred Hershey & Martha Chase ,1952 - Frederick Sanger,
Posted by Ulixen 3 years ago
Solid argument, Jack. God Bless.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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