CreateDebate


Debate Info

102
78
Yes No
Debate Score:180
Arguments:178
Total Votes:193
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (93)
 
 No (71)

Debate Creator

JacksonM(46) pic



Does God exist?

I would like for anyone who comes in here to debate with FACTS. No opinions or any crap.

I believe in and follow science, and logic, and reason. But I am also Catholic, because from my perspective, atheism is a bigger "leap of faith" than faith itself, due to recently discovered evidence all the way from the structure of DNA to the mysteries of the cosmos.

NOTE: please don't come in here ranting about stupid Catholics. I don't know how to block people, but I will figure it out if you do that.

Yes

Side Score: 102
VS.

No

Side Score: 78
3 points

Here's an example of science pointing towards the existence of a God, just off the top of my head: The Big Bang. How in the world do you get something from nothing without a God???

Side: Yes
2 points

I have to agree, something can't exist without a creator.

I personally don't believe in the Big Bang theory, because of the fact that "The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today." (BBC news)

I wonder where those particles and matters came from in all honesty.

SOMEONE please rebut me.

Side: Yes
JacksonM(46) Clarified
2 points

Clarification: I would change "something can't exist without a Creator" to the following:

"everything has a cause"

Side: Yes
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
1 point

Let's say we never find out how the Universe actually originated; does this prove God's existence? The absence of knowledge shouldn't be a prompt to shove "God did it" in its place. This premise is its entirely own fallacy, the God of the Gaps. Back before we knew much of anything about our Universe, humanity kept shoving God's hand into the crevices they couldn't explain; from lightning to earthquakes to empty space. The origin of the Universe is no different. There are things in the Universe that just plain don't make sense to us right now; for instance, the idea behind a black hole is there is a singularity at its center, which compresses all finite amounts of matter into infinite density; which breaks the density principle that p=m/v. This goes completely against all known laws of physics and logic; is it your position that this is the work of God?

"something can't exist without a creator". What is your proof or reasoning for this, if I may ask?

Side: No
1 point

Well the best answer anyone can come up with is that all those particles come from God.

Side: Yes
Mack(534) Clarified
1 point

"I personally don't believe in the Big Bang theory, because of the fact that "The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today." (BBC news)"

Why does that make you not believe in the big bang theory? (Remember that the big bang theory doesn't claim to know why the big bang happened, just that it did.)

Side: Yes
Baggins11(2) Clarified
1 point

This is exactly what we don't know...

This is how I like to look at it:

The answer to all our questions is 101.

Scientific theory = 50

Scientific experiments proving these theories = 50

Scientists say that we have reached 100 and that we just need to find out the 1

Religious scripture = 0 (means nothing)

Their belief = 0 (means nothing)

A bunch of made up evidence that isn't coherent = 0

Religious people say that 0+0+0=101 and that they have worked everything out.

Side: Yes
Mack(534) Disputed
1 point

"How in the world do you get something from nothing without a God?"

It is true that we can't yet confidently explain how we can get something from nothing without God. This does not mean that God is the correct explanation.

Firstly, I don't think we can say for sure that we did get something from nothing in the first place.

Even if we did, there is a difference between saying "God is the only explanation we have" and saying "God is the only explanation possible."

Your reasoning assumes that we could never possibly explain the Big Bang without God, but I see no evidence that this is necessarily true. It was once thought that we could never explain lightning without a God. Your argument is similar to that and it is flawed for the same reason.

Side: No
JacksonM(46) Disputed
1 point

"This does not mean that God is the correct explanation."

Of course it doesn't. But the theory of God answers the most questions in the best way, and therefore is the best theory. That's how science works.

Ummmm why not? The Universe began, didn't it? And before that, there was nothing... soo.....

When someone was like "ooh what is lightning? ... I dunno - must be God! Praise the Lord!" that was the "God of the Gaps" which is not what I'm using for the BB. In contrast, I come up with the theory of God after examining evidence and striking down the various possible theories (which, I can't help but notice, you have none of) by process of elimination

Side: Yes
Dermot(5453) Disputed
1 point

It is true that we can't yet confidently explain how we can get something from nothing without God.

That’s not true scientists disagree on that

This does not mean that God is the correct explanation.

Yes

Firstly, I don't think we can say for sure that we did get something from nothing in the first place.

We cannot say we didn’t

Side: Yes
seanB(736) Disputed
1 point

"How in the world do you get something from nothing?"

You don't. This is such a common argument that I feel I have to clarify, because this argument comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Big Bang is.

Let's first talk about what the Big Bang isn't:

1. It isn't "something coming from nothing". The laws of conservation of energy show us that this is impossible. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be changed in form (Mandl, 1983). Thereby, all the energy that exists in the universe, has always existed, but crucially, it has always existed in some form or another. It is likely that we cannot currently understand its earliest forms due to a fundamental difference in universal property (Hawking, 1996).

2. The Big Bang isn't the beginning of "things", it's only the beginning of things in the sense that we currently know things. "Before" the big bang, the stuff (a scientific term, by the way) of the universe had different properties than the properties which it has now. For example, it has been hypothesized that at a certain level of density, matter and energy can actually take on the property of repulsive gravity, rather than attractive gravity (Guth, 1981).

3. The Big Bang isn’t the formation of all things, it is the shift of things into a spaciotemporal paradigm. This, interestingly, makes even the concept of “before” the big bang a misnomer. If time as we know it only came to exist with the Big Bang event, then to say “before the big bang” is to attempt to transplant the concept of time onto a paradigm in which time has no meaning (Hawking, 1996).

Essentially, the big bang is a shift from the physical properties that existed pre-Big-Bang, into the physical properties that exist now, post-Big-Bang. It is not “something from nothing”.

Bibliography

Guth, A. H., 1981. Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems. Physical Review D, , 23(2), pp. 347-356.

Hawking, S., 1996. The Beginning of Time. [Online]

Available at: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

[Accessed 19 05 2018].

Mandl, F., 1983. Statistical physics / F. Mandl. [Online]

Available at: http://library.um.ac.id/free-contents/downloadpdf.php/buku/statistical-physics-f-mandl-12889.pdf

[Accessed 19 5 2018].

Murphy, P. & Kim, C., 1988. Solution of the horizon and flatness problems by multiple inflations. Physical Review D, , 37(10), pp. 2732-2742.

Side: No
JacksonM(46) Disputed
1 point

1. So the energy is eternal? It's always been there? I think you're missing an important point here. The laws of physics and thermodynamics only affect things within the universe. So, any kind of violation of those laws implies a cause that is transcendent of this universe. I don't know what universal property means.

2. William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD, is a prominent member of the Design movement. He's contributed to several books, written for several scientific and philosophical journals, and he is a member of 9 professional societies - including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Forum, the American Scientific Affiliation, to name only a few. He explained that the idea of an "infinite past" is absurd: "Let's use an example involving marbles. Imagine I had an infinite number of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself. However, another way to do it would be to give you all of the odd-numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would - and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! Or, another approach would be for me to give you all of the marbles numbered four and higher. That way, you would have an infinity of marbles, but I would have only three marbles left. What these illustrations demonstrate is that the notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. In the first case in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero; in the second case in which I gave you all the odd-numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. In each case, we have subtracted the identical number from the identical number, but we have come up with non-identical results. For that reason, mathematicians are forbidden from doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithmetic, because this would lead to contradictions. You see, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite qualities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However -- and here's the point -- it's not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. Substitute 'past events' for 'marbles,' and you can see the absurdities that would result. So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in its past: it must have had a beginning. In fact, we can go further. Even if you could have an actually infinite number of things, you couldn't form such a collection by adding one member after another. That's because no matter how many you add, you can always add one more before you get to infinity. This is sometimes called the Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite. But if the past really were infinite, then that would mean we have managed to traverse an infinite past to arrive at today. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all the negative numbers and to arrive at zero at the present moment. Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that reason as well, we can conclude there must have been a beginning to the universe." Also, Craig says "theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity - or beginning - is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it"

3. As you say, the Big Bang was the beginning of Time, and there was nothing before it. This implies a First Cause that transcends the Universe.

Side: Yes

His Name is Jesus...............................................................................................

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes bit we're asking for proof - thanks buddy. Can you help me in providing evidence for the debate?

Side: Yes
KJVPrewrath(979) Disputed
1 point

Prove me wrong. I am tired of doing all of the work for you atheists. The Bible and creation cannot just happen without God. I have some questions for you. How did you happen if there is no God? Can you orove evolution is true? Whgat caused the big bang? How to the planets align? How does a baby have his parts? How did the human geneome happen? Are you an atheist or an agnostiv? What is love made from, and more. To satisfy your need for proof: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1&version=KJV

Side: No
1 point

And now we're really concern if God is real. This question is mostly answered using metaphysic "If God isn't real what cause to 'that thing' to exist?"

Side: Yes
2 points

Asks for facts ... cites subjective belief as justification.

Nope.

The structure of DNA and the scale of the cosmos say nothing about the probability of an abstract "supernatural" (as though such a thing exists), indefinable, unfalsifiable entity that was dreamed up a few millennia ago. As for your particular brand of entity: the Bible is filled with patently false nonsense, particular concerning the natural world.

Saying "DNA is complex, thus God exists" is the equivalent of saying that because you don't understand how your Christmas presents got under the tree, that Santa must exist.

This is why science and faith are incompatible. Faith begins at the point where a person decides to stop seeking fact.

Side: No
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

As for facts does your DNA come from your Mommy and Daddy ? Has zero to do with God but keep up the babble you confused idiot !

Side: Yes
seanB(736) Disputed
1 point

Obviously it does. Still has zero to do with God. You are too stupid to actually form coherent arguments.

Side: No
JacksonM(46) Disputed
1 point

DNA is not just complex - it contains information. If the entirety of Encyclopedia Britannica were to come down from space written in binary code, you would certainly take it as proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when something even more extraordinary happens in your cells, you call it natural selection.

When they found the Rosetta Stone, they immediately assumed it was created by intelligence, not just random erosion.

DNA is code, like computer code (also created by people), and atheism cannot account for that coming from naturalistic sources.

Side: Yes
2 points

There is, quite literally, no way to determine whether something exists or not when it is not a physical being. If I was to tell you that there was a large invisible carrot orbiting the Earth, you would find it impossible to prove me wrong. What we can do, however, is prove various claims made in holy books wrong- thus ruining their validity. The Quran says that water does not mix with salt water (25.53) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining the validity of this source. The bible says that the earth is flat (40.22) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining its validity.

To surmise, it is utterly impossible to disprove the existence of God but you can render whatever tells us that he exists useless.

Side: No
JacksonM(46) Disputed
1 point

There is, quite literally, no way to determine whether something exists or not when it is not a physical being. I've been very clear about this - I don't think you can definitively prove or disprove the existence of a God.

If I was to tell you that there was a large invisible carrot orbiting the Earth, you would find it impossible to prove me wrong. Your point being?

What we can do, however, is prove various claims made in holy books wrong- thus ruining their validity. Disproving a single statement of fact doesn't invalidate the entire book - in fact, it just shows the book was written by human beings, who make mistakes.

The Quran says that water does not mix with salt water (25.53) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining the validity of this source.

1. I'm Catholic - not Islam.

2. Actually, this verse is probably discussing the phenomenon where two bodies of water that touch each other and constantly exchange water have different temperatures, chemical compositions, salinities, etc etc

The bible says that the earth is flat (40.22) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining its validity.

1. It says that the earth is a "circle" which doesn't necessarily mean "flat." You could say that a circle is really a "three-dimensional circle." Of course, that's not a technically correct explanation, but then again the writers of the Gospel weren't exactly mathematicians - they were disciples and authors.

2. So what if these people were flat-earthers? The "round-earth" theory didn't really become a legitimate thing until the 6th century BC - and the book of Isaiah is from very early Old Testament.

If every statement in the Bible and/or Quran were scientifically perfect, that would actually be evidence that the Church had altered them over the years. So if these are mistakes (which I think they might not be), those mistakes would actually further validate them as first-hand accounts.

(Just as a side note, I think you should look words up before you use them. "Surmise" means to "suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it" according to the dictionary, which doesn't really fit in your sentence)

Side: Yes
1 point

I have one daughter that is Catholic, one daughter that is Baptist. I have NOTHING against ANYONES religion as long as they don't try to control ME.

In my 81 years I have looked for, and not found ANY evidence that ANY "god" exists. NOBODY actually KNOWS, but, I believe what I see or find enough evidence of. My only "god" is Mother Nature ... if I have one. I try to enjoy her. The Christian God/Islamic God/Jewish God, which are obviously all the same one, just different "rules" written by different MEN and passed off as "The Word of God" but is the level of "control" they wished to have over their followers.

We will eventually find all (or most) of the answers to the universe, if we keep from destroying ourselves "in the name of "whichever GOD"". I just cannot accept these cruel "gods" many call "loving". It's not "love" I see around me from the major "god" of the world. When I see some, I might start to believe. If I could hold my breath for ANOTHER 20 centuries, or more, I might get a chance to see something believable. (So many gods, so little time.) ;-)

Side: No
JacksonM(46) Disputed
2 points

Have you tried looking at science to support the existence of a God? I haven't really seen any significant scientific evidence that God does exist... let's start with evolution. As far as I can tell, Darwinism is a total fabrication. For instance, have you ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? It produced almost all of today's existing phyla in a ridiculously short amount of time, with no record of "transitional" species in between, which are required to support the theory of Darwinism.

Of course, natural selection exists. All horses descend from only a few species of horse, for example, but I do not share a common ancestor with a bird and a gorilla and an elephant.

Supporting Evidence: The Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Animals (burgess-shale.rom.on.ca)
Side: Yes
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
1 point

I, like YOU, "haven't really seen any scientific evidence that God does exist". And "as far as you can tell, Darwinism is a total fabrication." As far as MANY others can tell, it is quite undeniable.

Is it "God" that turns the yoke and white of an egg into a bird? Or is it "Mother Nature"? Are the birds, insects, crustaceans ALSO "Gods creations"? Nothing to do with "nature"? I disagree with you, and we both have rights to an opinion. If I agreed with you, we'd likely both be wrong.

Side: Yes
JacksonM(46) Disputed
2 points

and like i said in my original answer - the big bang. something is created from nothing, which is impossible and unreasonable without a Creator

Side: Yes
Dermot(5453) Disputed
1 point

something is created from nothing, which is impossible and unreasonable

How do you know something cannot be created from nothing ?

without a Creator

Who created your creator if what you say is true ?

Side: No
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
0 points

And like I said in my original answer, we will eventually find MOST of the facts about the universe ... IF ....

And, like I also inferred, Mother Nature is our "creator". There is much more evidence for THAT than your version. Just sayin'.

Side: Yes
1 point

In my 81 years I have looked for, and not found ANY evidence that ANY "god" exists.

https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/

Side: Yes
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
1 point

Sorry. I don't do facebook OR youtube where every crackpot in the world resides. I look for legitimate articles by legitimate, educated authors with NO agenda besides spreading the results of research.

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
-1 points

Crazy AL does religion control you ? If not so why the 81 year old Progressive Babble you Idiot

Side: Yes
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
1 point

To my friend, outlaw:

It isn't likely, but, I COULD outlive you. I'm in the process of moving, so, who knows, I may be your neighbor.

In which case, I likely would not attend your funeral, but, if you'd send me a stamped, self addressed envelope, I WOULD write a nice letter saying how much I approved of it. You have a nice day.

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
-1 points

But you Crazy 81 year old Progressive the Party supports Muslims. Have you heard of Keith Ellison ? LMMFAO

Side: Yes
JacksonM(46) Disputed
2 points

"Keith Maurice Ellison is an American politician and lawyer who has been the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2007 and Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee since 2017." - Wikipedia

I have now. So what?

Side: No
0 points

Someone asked, what created the creator.

This is a valid question.

If a creator exists, then they must be material. Otherwise they obviously do not exist.

To substantiate the assertion, "matter must be created", then this conundrum needs to be addressed.

This will inevitably lead to further questioning.

What created the creator's creator, what created the creator's creator's creator, etc etc.

Ultimately we are always left scratching our heads, trying to make sense of the something from nothing principle.

Side: No
JacksonM(46) Disputed
1 point

Actually, the Creator I believe in is immaterial. I don't know where your assumption that God is made of mass actually comes from.

Side: Yes
Hypothetical(68) Disputed
2 points

The only reason you believe in the God you believe in is because of where you were born, who raised you, and the year you were born. You have no logical explanation for not believing in Zeus, Buddha, Shiva, Apollo, or any of the hundreds if not thousands of deities worshipped over time, yet you firmly believe you got it right despite no evidence proving so.

Also, you earlier stated in a previous post that everything has a beginning. Which means, logically, the Creator you believe in did as well. You also stated that to make something from nothing you need God. Therefore the god you believe in should have been created by another, more powerful god, and so on. Slapping God at the beginning of existence doesn't work, no matter how you try to word it.

Side: No