The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
The Contender
Apoctapus
Con (against)

is God real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Apoctapus has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 504 times Debate No: 115070
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Pro

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

Con

I'm up for it, let's just keep it civilised.
Debate Round No. 1

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. 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
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: http://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: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com.........

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 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.
Apoctapus

Con

Okay, so you put some reasonable arguments forward, and It's nice to see that you aren't just screaming 'BIBLE', I respect that. In this, I attempt to answer some of your questions and also put forward some points of my own. if you would like to skip to these points, see the end of the third paragraph, the end of the fifth paragraph and the sixth paragraph.

First, on the argument of design, if DNA had come into existence instantaneously, then yes, that would be amazing. But you have to remember that it took thousands of millions of years for even the most basic DNA samples to come into existence.
So, instead of one very smart person writing Encyclopedia Britannica in a short amount of time, it's more like millions of very unintelligent people taking turns to write one word each month. Oh, and this article brings up the possibility that DNA existed before life itself, so that's even more time for it to form; https://www.newscientist.com...

On the Big Bang part of the argument, the explosion itself didn't instantly form DNA, that's like saying a specific cake was made by the person who coded the code for the robotic arm that installed the heating element onto the oven that you used for the cake. Sure, that person allowed for that cake to be made but didn't create the cake itself.
And sure, the chances of us coming into existence are low, but think about it this way: if those chances had worked out any other way, we wouldn't be around to comment on how unlikely it is for us to exist, and if any life of any form did exist, it would look at itself and say 'boy, it sure was unlikely we would exist, isn't it?'

On the mutualism point, you put forward some very good points but make one mistake: your thinking of evolution as a process that works immediately. The Sweetlips obviously evolved teeth somewhere along the line, but this isn't because it thought that it would really like some teeth, it was a result of a line of genetic mutations that lead to teeth. These mutations happened, and the fish got teeth, but these teeth didn't stop it from eating, procreating and having children with the mutation present. Its teeth just fell out some point in its life and then it went on with its day. The fish didn't instantly die or un-evolve the mutation because it was useless. Then at some point, the Blue Streak Wrasse accidentally ate some plaque off of the Sweetlips and the relationship began. Now, this brings me on to a point of my own: if there is a creator, how do you explain vestigial organs? In case you don't know what these are, they're organs, bones or other biological features that serve no use in a creature. An example of this: Pythons and Boa Constrictors have small remnants of hind legs in the form of useless bones buried in their muscle. (I heard this somewhere else, that I have now forgotten, but here is a website that mentions it: https://www.amnh.org...) the serve no purpose, so why would a God put them there? However, if the snakes had evolved from other reptile species with legs, then this would explain the pointless bones. It isn't just snakes either: here is a list of vestigial features present in humans: https://www.livescience.com.... Feel free to look into these.

Now for the motion point. Simply, the motion came from the Big Bang. I know you don't believe in the Big Bang, but I'll come to that later, for now, imagine it happened. The energy that causes all motion came from the movement energy from the explosion pushing out the universe from that original singularity. Seeing as you are familiar with Newton's first law of motion, you may also be familiar with the law of the Conservation of Energy. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Fair enough, but then it states that it can only be transferred. They key word there is 'transferred': The movement energy is transferred from the other types of energy from the Big Bang, or the Big Bangs own movement energy. This is pretty simple physics, but here is the Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Finally, on your third point: You got me. No really, you got me, and every other scientist out there - well, only partially. You see, we do not know, for sure, where the Big Bang came from. And sure, it may be a God. But seeing as there is no evidence for that being true, making that assumption isn't a safe bet. And, now for the question I'm sure you knew was coming... If something can't be created from nothing, And God created the universe, who created God?

And now for an argument of my own: How do you explain the CMB: The Cosmic Microwave Background. The CMB is the radiation left over from the immense heat from the Big bang. It is present everywhere in the Universe, although it is very faint. Too faint to be detected by humans, but it is definitely there. If you do not believe that the Big Bang happened, how do you explain this?
(Again, I knew about this from somewhere else, but I have a source here: https://www.space.com...).

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

First, let me go over the argument of design.
"if DNA had come into existence instantaneously, then yes, that would be amazing. But you have to remember that it took thousands of millions of years for even the most basic DNA samples to come into existence."
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.
Now to life forms themselves. The problem with life developing over a long period of time is that it will not sustain itself. To see what I mean, take a look at the four criteria for life.

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.
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 so many life threatening scenarios an 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 another one of my arguments. 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.
Now to mutualism. If the sweetlips teeth rotted and fell out, then how did the wrasse eat plaque off the sweetlips non-existing teeth. It breaks down to this. The sweetlips had to seek out the wrasse at the same time the teeth developed otherwise the teeth would have fallen out. The wrasse would also have to develop the instinct to seek out the sweetlips at the exact same time as the other instincts developed.
Here is another example of mutualism. This 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 your arguments. You said that there would be no reason for a God to give his creation vestigal figures. Just because we do not currently know a features purpose does not mean that it doesn't have one. Science is continually discovering stuff every day and sooner or later, we will find the function of things that seem to have no function.
Now to the motion argument. You said that the big bang set everything in motion, but this only pushes the problem back a notch. What set the big bang in motion? The big bang cannot set itself in motion so there has to be another force that set it in motion.
You also asked me to explain the CMB which is the radiation left over from the immense heat from the big bang. First of all, this assumes the radiation was from the big bang but there are a number of other places it could have come from. Second of all, this doesn't necessarily dis-prove God's existence. It is very possible, and a number of Christians believe this, that God created the world with the big bang. The believe of a big bang explosion and the belief of God are not necessarily contradictory.
You said you don't know what caused the big bang theory but rather asked me what caused God. I had to do a bit of research but here is what I came up with.
God is not a created being. God has existed for all eternity. I know you are going to ask that if God doesn't need a beginning, why does the universe need a beginning.
To this question I will use the following reasoning.
P1 Everything which has a beginning has a cause
P2 The universe has a beginning
C Therefore, the universe has a cause

The universe has a beginning, and therefore needed a cause. In other words it could not have created itself. Something outside of it must have created it. God, unlike the universe had no beginning and therefore did not need a cause. Asking who created God is a loaded question. The answer is simply no one. In addition, according to Einstein's general relativity which has overwhelming evidence supporting it, time is linked to space and matter. So time itself had a beginning and therefore had a cause. God, by definition is the creator of the universe and is therefore the creator of time. God is not bound by his own creation, he is not bounded by the time dimension.
Even with a God out of the equation I still have the right to turn the question you just asked me back around on you. Who created the universe?

Sources:
1. https://www.christiancourier.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
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
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 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.

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