CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Atheists-8.7 million to defend
This is the number of species on Earth that had to evolve w/o a supernatural being. If there is no God, then every single one of them evolved w/o any help. So, if we can w/o question determine that just ONE could NOT have evolved on their own, then God is an undeniable reality. I can think of a couple of species that fit this description. This is not a for or against evolution post. What I want to know is if there is an honest atheist who agrees with me.
If there is no God, then every single one of them evolved w/o any help.
If we can w/o question determine that just ONE could NOT have evolved on their own, then God is an undeniable reality.
The first premise is flawed, it assumes the only thing that can help evolution is a god or nothing.
However 'god' and 'whatever helped some thing evolve' are not the same thing. It is not a binary option in front of you. You are pinning on god to something when god is not a necessity of the conclusion, the thing is.
Just because some predator eating the slow prey allows for the faster members of the preys better chances at passing on there genes doesn't mean that god exists or exerts some evolutionary force on the prey, it means the predator exerts some predatory force of evolution on the prey.
Just because the climate can add pressure to an evolving species doesn't mean there is a god and that that god exerts evolutionary forces on a species, it means climate can exert evolutionary forces on a species.
Just because man has shaped several species dogs for instance (silver fox is a neat one) doesn't mean that god is real or exerted force on a species, it means that man has exerted some form of evolutionary force on a species. Just as other species have exerted pressure on others.
Just because evolution can be guided doesn't mean that it can only be guided. That would be ignoring all other natural forces and actors that can be explained naturally.
Whatever you can show acts as a force driving evolution proves itself can affect evolution, not a god or that evolution can only be guided.
Everything you mentioned IS evolution. You are at least on the right track in this debate. Once we find a species that cannot have evolved or come into existence through natural selection, then we must turn our attention elsewhere. All it takes is ONE species that nature could not have influenced and brought about to force us to have to accept another conclusion.
All it takes is ONE species that nature could not have influenced and brought about to force us to have to accept another conclusion.
You are just restating your argument here without addressing my points. You can continue down this line if you want, but you still haven't fixed the relationship of your statements. Any conclusion that stems from this reasoning where you interject god as the conclusion is a non sequitur conclusion.
The conclusion you offer is not connected by necessity to the premise is what I showed above. Your first premise is flawed, then it just tacks itself on to the second premise.
Again; your first statement assumes nothing 'helps' evolution, or only a god can help evolution. Do you see why this is a faulty assumption? Other things can 'help' evolution.
Your second premise is faulty too. This premise is stating if anything helps evolution, there is a god. This is faulty because if 'something' helps evolution, it is shows itself to help evolution and not a deity. Here is where your premises are not logically connected to each other. God is not a necessary conclusion, the 'something' that helped evolution is.
If we are unable to determine what 'helped' evolution in an instance, that just means we are unable to determine what helped evolution in that instance. God is not a logical answer as it is not a necessity of the conclusion just as if we knew what 'helped' evolution a god would not be a necessity of the conclusion.
Not only would that be non sequitur logic if one were to interject god as the answer to an unknown, you are setting yourself up for a shrinking god or god of the gaps. In that scenario the god recedes as we learn more about the natural world, not an all powerful being but just a placeholder for the unknown.
I guess I should clarify my position for you. The original post was meant to mean w/o divine intervention. I never specifically said nature does not helps evolution. I have no idea why you came to that conclusion. You misinterpreted it. Environmental conditions of course play a part. I never said they didn't. But when a species completely contradicts the laws of science and nature, we need to look in another direction. The atheist answer is the same as always. WE DON'T KNOW, therefore God still can't be an alternative option.
WE DON'T KNOW, therefore God still can't be an alternative option.
No, they don't discount God as an option, they just don't say "we don't know therefore it's God". Again, if a species could not have evolved as a consequence of its environment, that does not mean God was the one that made it that way. It MIGTH have been him, or it MIGHT not have been, therefore we keep investigating until we find an answer.
Also, you didn't respond to this: [http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Atheists87milliontodefend#arg515201]
The atheist answer is the same as always. WE DON'T KNOW, therefore God still can't be an alternative option.
You are misrepresent my stance here. I am not saying god cannot be an alternative option, I am saying god doesn't follow out of necessity from the line of reasoning you present. The conclusion that follows your logic does not follow.
I showed why the conclusion you use is tacked on in my previous posts. Here you address this.
The original post was meant to mean w/o divine intervention.
This still doesn't clear up how your two premises work together. Now you are equating 'divine intervention' with 'not knowing something'.
I already pointed out that not knowing something is not equal to saying a god did it. That is the jump in logic. Not knowing something just means that we do not know. Not knowing something does not equal the 'divine happened'.
What you propose here is exactly god of the gaps.
Edit, somehow this has me on the wrong side of the debate, the god + evolution bit. Must have been something I did.
My apologies to you then. However, many militant atheists, when presented with scientific facts that move the arguement towards a supreme being, claim they haven't got all the answers yet, but the only definitive answer is that no God can possibly exist. You talk about the god of the gaps, but what about atheists who have enormous gaps and contradictions in their possible godless society. They can't even acknowledge that some things may not be explained scientifically w/o a supreme being. same concept as the god of the gaps.
put another way. not knowing something is not equal to their not being a chance a supreme being is involved.
My apologies to you then. However, many militant atheists, when presented with scientific facts that move the arguement towards a supreme being, claim they haven't got all the answers yet, but the only definitive answer is that no God can possibly exist.
No atheist here has at all implied or suggested this, so the reason you assumed this about him is not because this has happened to you, at least I don't think so, but rather that you distort the reality of what others are saying to you. What he has been trying to tell you here is the same thing we all have been trying to say. We aren't saying that it couldn't possibly be god but rather what he was expressing exactly...
Have you ever been on debating christianity. com Numerous atheists always claim science just hasn't figured it out yet. It is relentless.
This is to point out that god isn't necessarily the answer... This is exactly what the guy above was saying, just because you don't know doesn't necessarily mean god did (god could have done it, but not knowing isn't proof or evidence that god did). Normally when I see an atheist say "science just hasn't figured it out yet" usually it means exactly as we tried to tell you, it wasn't necessarily god.
within my own experience, majority of us will admit to their being a chance. You have to understand, being an atheist means not being convinced. A lack of buying into god-belief, thus in a theist v.s. atheist debate, our goal is to refute all attempts to prove god as a fact or a probability (no not possibility, probability meaning more than just a possibility, being probable), this does not mean that there is no chance that a god could exist, just that there is no reason to believe. So all those atheists you think are disregarding chance, might not be disregarding chance but rather reason to think their is a god at all.
not knowing something is not equal to their not being a chance a supreme being is involved
This here. If you accept this you have to accept your original argument doesn't work because it is the same form.
Not knowing something is means you just do not know something is, not that there is/is not a supreme being. The second half about a supreme being is tacked on in this instance as it was in your original argument.
with scientific facts that move the argument towards a supreme being
Well this one is just answered with the last portion. Your argument didn't move in that direction based on the logic provided.
But there is more about why this pairing of science and religion is wonky. Basically the two answer different questions.
acknowledge that some things may not be explained scientifically w/o a supreme being. same concept as the god of the gaps.
If you are using a supreme being to prove science you are not using science. It ends up being turtles all the way down.
Science says something is or is not. Morality says one thing is better than another. Religion says some things are moral/immoral.
Science asks and answers 'is' type questions. Religions asks and answers 'ought to' type questions.
Science categorizes our natural world. Science is falsifiable, that is it can be tested in some way and found to either pass the test or fail the test. These tests are repeatable, as in others can duplicate the experiment and arrive at similar conclusions.
A supreme being is not of this natural world and is immeasurable, it is not falsifiable it cannot be tested. A supreme being or god is not measurable by science.
If there is no God, then every single one of them evolved w/o any help.
No, if there is no God, every single one of them would have to evolve without God and that is all. Competition with other species for finite resources, migrating to new regions, changing environmental conditions, mutation and numerous other factors all work to together to "help" a species evolve.
So, if we can w/o question determine that just ONE could NOT have evolved on their own
Tell me then, how does one go about doing that?
then God is an undeniable reality.
False dichotomy
I can think of a couple of species that fit this description.
you go about doing that through scientific testing and observation. Knowing what we do about evolution, a slow gradual process that results in a higher species over millions of years, all we need to do is find a species that couldn't have come about in this way. One example is a species that is totally reliant on another for its existence. The Australian termite is just one example.
Remember that evolution moves forward and becomes more complex, not the other way around. Therefore, a species should never have to rely on another for its survival when at one time it didn't need to. That contradicts evolution.
First off, what you know about evolution is not on the same level as what evolutionary biologists or even a second year med-student knows about it. You make the plainly clear by your simplification of evolutionary principles.
Second, we don't know everything about evolution. But we know a lot more than we did in Darwin's time, and we will likely know a lot more about it in another 200 years. If there is a question that science is not presently prepared to answer, it does not mean that the principle is wrong.
in a higher species over millions of years
"Higher"? That doesn't even mean anything. "More successful in current conditions experienced by the organism than those that go extinct in those conditions" is more accurate.
One example is a species that is totally reliant on another for its existence.
A symbiotic relationship is in no way a refutation of evolution. All species are reliant on other life forms in some way, because other life forms are part of the environment. Much as different levels of UV light or different temperatures or different terrains can affect evolution, so can other life forms.
Remember that evolution moves forward and becomes more complex
Becoming more complex is a frequent side-effect of evolution yes, but it is not intrinsic. Besides, adapting to use another organism to maintain your biological processes can easily be more complex since new structures and behaviors may be involved. Assessing complexity is....complex.
The Australian termite is just one example.
Please explain why. Better yet, provide a link and let me examine it.
Of course we don't know everything about evolution. The problem is evolution can't be tested in a lab with accurate results. Only observation can, and that will take 100s of millions of years to accurately Gage how evolution works.
Are you saying humans are no more advanced or "higher" up than say the chimpanzee? I don't understand why you think there isn't a hierarchy in the animal kingdom. You will have to clarify that position for me. The way I read it is by your definition humans may not be more successful in current conditions than say spiders. We may become extinct and they thrive. Please clarify.
I never said a symbiotic relationship refutes evolution. However, evolution does have to answer on how two or more species that gradually came into existence and can't survive w/o each other can work.
The problem is evolution can't be tested in a lab with accurate results.
Patently false. But lets get a few things clarified here. First, biological evolution is the variance of allele frequencies among and between populations over time. This has been repeatedly proven to be true ever since we started learning how to read DNA, but its results in terms of genetic expression has been obvious since way before we knew about DNA, for thousands of years really. The "theory" behind theory of evolution isn't whether it happens, but how. It is theory of natural selection. We can study allele frequencies from one generation to the other in the lab. We can create an extremely wide variety of conditions that simulate natural conditions and stimulate allele frequency variance. We can make predictions based on these different conditions and then experiment and see if the predictions come true. Plus, there are now dozens of observed cases of speciation, both in the lab and even in the wild.
Are you saying humans are no more advanced or "higher" up than say the chimpanzee?
In specific comparisons we are, but as a whole? We can adapt to almost any environment, but that is because of technology and advanced social structure, and we invariably have to manipulate the environment to make that happen. If you put a group of humans in a chimp forest and do not allow the humans to intentionally shape the environment, it is almost certainly going to be more difficult for the humans to survive than for the chimps. Also, chimps are naturally stronger than humans despite being smaller, so you could argue that they have more advance musculature. "Advanced" is not an accurate or meaningful across-the-board descriptor. Bacteria are the "least advanced" group of life on the planet, but they can adapt to new environments and produce in numbers that more "advanced" species could never hope to.
You will have to clarify that position for me. The way I read it is by your definition humans may not be more successful in current conditions than say spiders. We may become extinct and they thrive. Please clarify.
What is to clarify? If that situation were to occur, if humans became extinct and spiders did not, then, ummm, yeah, there is no question who was more successful.
However, evolution does have to answer on how two or more species that gradually came into existence and can't survive w/o each other can work.
It does. Both species descended from a lineage of previous species. Initially they weren't in the same environment, but at some point they began to cross paths. If the species started to be benefited by being more interactive with each other, selective pressure will favor those members who are better at it, and both species will evolve to be more interactive with each other. At some point, at least one may evolve into a new species that needs the other despite the fact that its predecessors didn't. If it is still reproducing and its predators aren't, than this was apparently clearly beneficial to the new species.
Depends what your definition of accurate is. For me, I would love to see it carry through from single cell organisms to the arrival of mammals. At the very least I would like to see a test lab change a fish into an amphibian and watch it get out of water and survive.
This would convince the creationists that evolution is absolute. Until then, there will always be an argument over the two as to weather evolution can be sustained for billions of years w/o falling apart.
For me, I would love to see it carry through from single cell organisms to the arrival of mammals. At the very least I would like to see a test lab change a fish into an amphibian and watch it get out of water and survive. This would convince the creationists that evolution is absolute.
That wouldn't be evolution, evolution doesn't happen that fast...
Until then, there will always be an argument over the two as to weather evolution can be sustained for billions of years w/o falling apart.
Dude, you really fail at a basic understanding of evolution.
change a fish into an amphibian and watch it get out of water and survive.
1: Evolution isn't that fast :P
2: A fish didn't turn into an amphibian, a species of fish became more and more adapted to land. If you saw the whole process you wouldn't be able to tell when it stopped being a fish and became an amphibian.
You must have missed my earlier post when I said you can't accurately test evolution in a test lab. Someone else said you can. Evolution takes way too damn long. That was my point in the discussion. Evolution is too slow.
Can you please give me those species of fish that adapted to land and which species they derived from. thank you
So, if we can w/o question determine that just ONE could NOT have evolved on their own, then God is an undeniable reality.
Just because we find a species that could not have evolved without tampering, does not mean it was because of an almighty creator of the universe. There are infinite possible things that could have done this.
Really. Infinite possibilities? Please give me, lets say 5 ways. Enlighten me. I know of no such ways. And please, keep it scientific if you can. thank you
It could be Allah, Frigg, the FSM, aliens, one or some of the trillions of hindu and Japanese gods. IF a creature could not have evolved naturally, it is not necessarily evidence of a god.
Allah is God. He is the God of Abraham, the same one Jews and Christians worship. As far as aliens, FSM, Frigg, or any other gods, no scientific evidence exists to support your claim. There is an over abundance of science on my side to back up an almighty, omnipotent Creator. And yes, this Being could put species on Earth that evolution could not.
Give me evidence for God then. But it has to be something that only your God could have done, not the FSM or the others (the FSM is omnipotent, after all, and creator of the universe in his mythology).
any supernatural beings of any kind not not exclusive to or of a diety, magic in and of itself, time travellers, extra-terrestrials, the matrix... another five explanations. well some of these were already stated...
nothing you mentioned can be backed up by science or evidence. So once again you are making up wild, crazy ideas to try to justify your atheist beliefs. Science has however shown overwhelming evidence that an all powerful Creator is not only probable, but essential to the universe.
Every scientific test has concluded that it is impossible for a closed system to go from maximum entropy back to zero entropy. Following this analysis, all matter in the universe came into existence at the same time, the Big Bang. We also know without question that the natural realm cannot create matter or energy, another indisputable law. If nature can't produce a universe, then an omnipotent supreme being must have.
Please don't make yourself look foolish by claiming the universe is an open system. no evidence exists to contradict a closed system.
Just about everyone on the planet accepts either God created the universe or it happened by random chance. The laws of science rule out random chance.
Every scientific test has concluded that it is impossible for a closed system to go from maximum entropy back to zero entropy. Following this analysis, all matter in the universe came into existence at the same time, the Big Bang. We also know without question that the natural realm cannot create matter or energy, another indisputable law. If nature can't produce a universe, then an omnipotent supreme being must have.
This does not mean that a deity has created our universe, what it does mean is we have a problem in science that needs to be solved. Where did our universe come from? If matter can't be created nor destroyed, if all the matter in the universe is constant, then all the matter had to come from somewhere, only other option is, the matter has existed for eternity. So let's just credit an omnipotent supreme being rather than actually try to investigate this inquiry. My next question would be, where did god come from? Has god always existed for eternity? if that is the case then why can't the universe have existed for eternity. The furthest you can argue this point is that the universe must have come from something else other than itself, so heres another explanation that are based on pure imagination rather than evidence like your god (well in this case because I don't know any evidence for them but I heard there are theories that back that up). Multiverse, the universe is a closed system, matter can't be created nor destroy, thus it must have been created in a multiverse that follows a different set of rules, different logic, that allows the creation of matter as long as it is inside a universe. Either way, since neither of us have any evidence to back these up, and we are only arguing them because they answer the logical issue, we would both be arguing from ignorance. In your case it is the contagious "God did it" syndrome.
Please don't make yourself look foolish by claiming the universe is an open system. no evidence exists to contradict a closed system.
What makes you think I am going to do that?
Just about everyone on the planet accepts either God created the universe or it happened by random chance. The laws of science rule out random chance.
I have read lots of post on various websites that claim our universe is an open system. They give no evidence, they just make that claim to defend their non belief in a supernatural Being.
Multiverses comes from a bunch of atheist scientists who are desperate to say anything to get more people to commit to a godless society. No such evidence exists for another universe. Now personally, I believe an almighty supreme being may have made numerous universes. Just no evidence to support it. The theories they propose are ludicrous. All they try to do is turn attention away from the fact that matter can't come into existence on its own.
Matter can't be eternal. Just take all the non-renewable elements like uranium, radium, thorium, radon to name a few. If matter were eternal, they would not be around. So now we know matter came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, there was no matter, time, or space. A supernatural, omnipotent Being created the universe through the BB.
I have read lots of post on various websites that claim our universe is an open system. They give no evidence, they just make that claim to defend their non belief in a supernatural Being.
This is relevant to our thread how?
Multiverses comes from a bunch of atheist scientists who are desperate to say anything to get more people to commit to a godless society. No such evidence exists for another universe.
The exact same amount of evidence has been supplied for a multiverse in this thread as there has been for god, which equals none. I'm not saying a multi-verse does exist, I was just showing how your logic is flawed. We can't jump to the conclusion that a multiverse or a god exists, just because it is a convenient answer to a question we don't have the capacity to investigate at the moment.
Now personally, I believe an almighty supreme being may have made numerous universes. Just no evidence to support it.
Let me ask you this, if you credit the existence of the entirety of the universe to god, because the universe would have had to come from somewhere, then may I ask where your god came from?
The theories they propose are ludicrous. All they try to do is turn attention away from the fact that matter can't come into existence on its own.
matter didn't come into existence on it's own. If you say matter came from god, then you have to answer to where did god come from? I could say that you are just trying to avoid the fact that you are using the "special pleading" fallacy for your god, everything has to come from somewhere, but not god though, cause god is different. Why are you so determined that we are trying to go out of our way to disprove god? What would we get out of that?
Matter can't be eternal. Just take all the non-renewable elements like uranium, radium, thorium, radon to name a few.
Elements aren't the same as matter... this is basic chemisty. Elements can break and usually do eventually break apart into electrons and protons, and neurons, which can form back together to make other elements. Matter is just atoms in general, just because elements can't be eternal doesn't mean matter can't, those elements can break down over and over and over, and reform over and over and over for all eternity.
So now we know matter came into existence at the time of the Big Bang.
wrong.
Before the Big Bang, there was no matter, time, or space.
Not necessarily, with the big bang there is also a theory called the big crunch which is like the reverse of the big bang, where everything comes back to a single point again, with these two theories, some have theorized that the universe could have had gone through a series of big bangs and big crunches.
A supernatural, omnipotent Being created the universe through the BB.
Even if all that was true, that wouldn't mean a supernatural, omnipotent being created the universe via Big Bang, but that we wouldn't know where all matter came from. You are jumping to conclusions. Even if matter had to have been created as some point; that doesn't mean "all matter had to have been created at some point, therefore god" none of that implies god, it just implies that we wouldn't know how matter came into existence.
I don't know exactly where our supreme being came from. What I do know is that either this supreme being or matter is eternal. And science has proven matter is not. This is something you need to accept. Elements are matter and they would be long gone if matter were eternal.
The big crunch is just another atheist conspiracy to try to deny the fact that a supreme being is responsible for the creation of the universe. All the scientific evidence points to the universe suffering a heat death and breaking apart and the galaxies going their separate ways.
But even if the universe were to start coming back together, you still couldn't get past the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy can never get back to zero. Period!
I would like to hear your explanation of where matter came from and how it stands up to our scientific laws.
I don't know exactly where our supreme being came from. What I do know is that either this supreme being or matter is eternal. And science has proven matter is not. This is something you need to accept. Elements are matter and they would be long gone if matter were eternal.
Elements are matter, but not all matter is any specific kind of element.
The big crunch is just another atheist conspiracy to try to deny the fact that a supreme being is responsible for the creation of the universe.
Again, what would we get out of that? If god existed as a fact why would we want to deny it? It doesn't make any sense, what benefit do we get out of a godless universe?
All the scientific evidence points to the universe suffering a heat death and breaking apart and the galaxies going their separate ways.
Their are multiple theories to how the universe will end if I am not mistaken, can you supply any evidence how their can only be one end?
But even if the universe were to start coming back together, you still couldn't get past the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy can never get back to zero. Period!
To be honest, neither of us really know what the fuck we are talking about... you have supplied no evidence and neither have I.
neither of us are physicists, yet you claim to have all the answers to the questions that all the physicists apparently as far as I can tell haven't answered themselves yet, yet you provide no evidence. I can't refute you, but at the same time, you have made no points, all you are doing is claiming that any alternative theories I show you are atheist propaganda. Paranoid much?
I would like to hear your explanation of where matter came from and how it stands up to our scientific laws.
I don't and neither do you. Your argument falls under a logical fallacy called false dichotomy, where you are trying to reduce the argument down to two possibilities when obviously there are more than two possibilities, even if we do not know them yet. What you have done is simply rationalize the significantly small amounts of physics that you know in such a way that god has to exist. Tell me do you have a degree in physics? I don't, so unless you have a degree, or any articles from any actual physicists to support an existence in god, what credibility do you have, that your perception of physics is at all accurate?
You tell me why atheists try so hard to disprove a supreme being exists. Frankly, it boggles my mind that atheists are so hell bent to be proven right. I don't get it.
Sure there are multiple theories about how the universe will end. Why wouldn't there be. there is enough scientists out there who just want to get their name recognized in the history books, right or wrong. I don't know the guys name, but on the Discovery channel, that Asian looking guy with the long gray hair and funny name gave a convincing argument that the universe will expand forever and break up and be scattered through space. With the universe expanding at a rapid rate, there is no reason to believe it can possibly come back together.
Your right, I am not a physicist. But I have read enough material from many physicists' who claim the laws of thermodynamics are absolute and cannot be broken. After all, it was physicists who came up with the laws of thermodynamics.
Also, I have common sense. If I take a hot pot off the stove and come back in a million years and the temperature in the room never exceeded 70 degrees, that pot of coffee will never get back to 90 degrees or whatever it started out at.
Finally, I can't come up with any more than two possibilities for how the universe started. Either matter created itself or a supreme being did. Please give me one somewhat logical scientific alternative.
And thank you for not bringing up the idiotic quantum mechanics that that moron Lawrence Krauss spouses off about. Another desperate attempt to try to disregard a supreme being.
You tell me why atheists try so hard to disprove a supreme being exists.
When did I say this? Stop distorting what people are trying to tell you...
Frankly, it boggles my mind that atheists are so hell bent to be proven right. I don't get it.
Like you are right now?
Sure there are multiple theories about how the universe will end. Why wouldn't there be. there is enough scientists out there who just want to get their name recognized in the history books, right or wrong. I don't know the guys name, but on the Discovery channel, that Asian looking guy with the long gray hair and funny name gave a convincing argument that the universe will expand forever and break up and be scattered through space. With the universe expanding at a rapid rate, there is no reason to believe it can possibly come back together.
That is Michio Kaku I believe, and he is one of my favorite theoretical physicists! Regardless, that doesn't mean that is the one and only theory that is valid...
Your right, I am not a physicist. But I have read enough material from many physicists' who claim the laws of thermodynamics are absolute and cannot be broken. After all, it was physicists who came up with the laws of thermodynamics.
Have you read about any physicists that have proven god is real via physics? No? then stop acting like you know enough about physics to claim it proves a supreme being...
Also, I have common sense. If I take a hot pot off the stove and come back in a million years and the temperature in the room never exceeded 70 degrees, that pot of coffee will never get back to 90 degrees or whatever it started out at.
It requires much more to contribute to physics than common sense. If you are so certain that their is evidence amongst physics to prove a supreme being exists, become a physicist and prove it, you will win an award for it and go down in history as well as becoming famous. It should be particularly easy for if you if it is all just common sense.
Finally, I can't come up with any more than two possibilities for how the universe started. Either matter created itself or a supreme being did. Please give me one somewhat logical scientific alternative.
I don't have to, my point is, just because you don't know something doesn't necessarily mean god did it, it just means you don't know.
And thank you for not bringing up the idiotic quantum mechanics that that moron Lawrence Krauss spouses off about. Another desperate attempt to try to disregard a supreme being.
Why do you think that all these theories just exist in order to disregard your god? Again, what would we get out of that? Why would we want to delude ourselves that there is no evidence for a god? What do we get out of that?
Science will never prove or disprove beyond any doubt that a supreme being exists. All science can do is sway the evidence one way or the other. I believe the evidence points to a supreme being. Proof can only be there when we die and see the afterlife.
This is my last post tonight. I got to get up early tomorrow. Have a good night. It was nice holding a debate with you.
Just about everyone on the planet accepts either God created the universe or it happened by random chance. The laws of science rule out random chance.
facepalm
EPIC. FAIL.
You think the Big Bang is RANDOM CHANCE? Seriously, go talk to physicist if you have "proof" that the Big Bang is "random chance". The fact that you think this is "random chance" shows that you really have utterly failed at doing any research whatsoever.
The Big Bang theory has been in development for over a century, don't you think someone would've noticed by now that it contradicts a basic law of physics, if it did?
I don't personally believe it was a random chance. Where in the world did you get that idea from? But there are people who believe it to be, and everyone I know who thinks this way are atheists.
I don't personally believe it was a random chance. Where in the world did you get that idea from? But there are people who believe it to be, and everyone I know who thinks this way are atheists.
It is more than just random chance, chance does play a part in it but it is not just chance, at the same time their isn't a sentient being controlling the creation of the universe that is evident as far as I am aware.
We also know without question that the natural realm cannot create matter or energy, another indisputable law. If nature can't produce a universe, then an omnipotent supreme being must have.
That doesn't mean it's the Abrahamic God. IF your claim was true, all it would prove is that something created the universe. It does not give us evidence to favor the Abrahamic God over , say, the FSM.
Even though I am a Christian, your right, it may not be the God of Abraham. But whatever it is, it has supernatural ability to create a universe from nothing. Call it what you like, but an omnipotent presence is out there. And enough people have felt It and have experienced the wonders of what the afterlife will be like.
That's where I disagree with you. You believe that the Big bang would not work because of the second law of thermodynamics. This is a common misconception, if you really want to understand the big bang, talk to a physicist, they will it explain much better than I can.
Also, IF your evidence for a creator of the universe is correct, that does not mean the being has to omnipotent, it merely means the being needs to have the power to create an universe.
It depends on which physicists' you talk to. If they are atheists, many renounce the laws of thermodynamics. Theist physicists' will tell you the laws are absolute and entropy can never be reversed.
The origins of the universe are still under debate, not in a theists vs non-theists debate, but in a theory vs theory debate. No one is completely sure a the moment, but just because we don't know doesn't mean "God did it". Imposing one's beliefs upon others without sufficient evidence is wrong, and since we don't have sufficient evidence for anything at the moment, it's best to keep open to the possibilities until further developments. So, basically, you can keep believing a God created the universe.
Also, any self-respecting physicist wouldn't simply shrug off the laws of thermodynamics without a good reason.
Even if a species existed that scientists agreed "could not have evolved" (what species are you referring to?), that still gets you no further than an argument from ignorance.
There are only two possible explanations. Either evolution made all the species, an omnipotent Being did, or a combination of the two. There is no third choice, as far as I can see. For there not to be an omnipotent Being capable of making species, then science must answer all species with scientific data.
Please explain the Australian termite then, for starters, with reasonable scientific evidence.
Yes either a species evolved due to natural processes or it didn't evolve from natural processes. But the fact that we can't explain the evolution of a species using known natural processes doesn't mean that it didn't evolve from unknown natural processes. As Auntie said, this amounts to nothing but an argument from ignorance.
It is actually ignorance on your part. You are 100% certain there is no God but you have no idea how to explain your views when science contradicts it. I don't know isn't a justification for claiming no God.
I find that rather ironic in this response to him.
You are 100% certain there is no God but you have no idea how to explain your views when science contradicts it.
Nebeling isn't necessarily an atheist, but he isn't much of a believer either, he doesn't argue vehemently for either side I don't think. I could be wrong. Also atheism is a lack of belief in god, not a belief in god. We can be certain that there is no reason to believe, but not certain in a non-belief as if it was a belief. I would say 90 something percent of atheists are agnostic which means they aren't certain a god doesn't exist, they just aren't convinced in the first place... Shows your ignorance here. Science doesn't contradict a reality where god doesn't exist, but rather contradicts a reality where god does exist, or at least makes god superfluous.
I don't know isn't a justification for claiming no God.
He never claimed there was no god, he just pointed out that god isn't necessarily the answer. This logic you are trying to use doesn't apply to him because he isn't trying to explain everything by saying there is no god, but rather that god isn't necessarily the explanation just because you don't know. This point you are trying to make works against you.
My apologies to Nebling. With that said, almost everyone on here who doesn't believe in God has flat out stated that there is no God. That is atheism, not agnostic. I can't recall many people claiming they aren't sure if a God exists or not.
My apologies to Nebling. With that said, almost everyone on here who doesn't believe in God has flat out stated that there is no God.
There are quite a handful that do, and I think it is because it is an either/or mentality that is why. People tend to think that not believing in god is the same thing as believing god doesn't exist, or that they lack belief means they need to argue belief that god doesn't exist. If god as a concept never existed, nobody would argue that god doesn't exist, but nobody would believe either. I know, because I have been a particularly careful to never claim god doesn't exist, and you can look through argument I ever made, and I doubt you will find an instance that I have said god doesn't exist. That said, I do think that believing god doesn't exist makes more sense than believing that god does, because it makes more sense to lean to god's non-existance than to be persuaded based on the lack of evidence. All in all this is a generality, that you don't know is 100% true. If god as a concept never existed, we would lack belief in deities, but not believe that deities don't exist because we'd never contemplate deities.
That is atheism, not agnostic.
A- means not or without
Theism means belief in god
gnosticism means knowledge
Their is a difference between knowledge and belief, you can believe something you don't know, you can believe something you do know. Therefore gnosticism/agnosticism does not replace atheism/theism. They answer different questions. you can be:
Agnostic atheist: one who (typically claims) doesn't know if god exists or not, and does not believe.
gnostic atheist: one who (typically claims) does know god exists or not, and does not believe. (which I would say is less then 10 percent of the atheist population based on personal experience.)
Agnostic theism: one who (typically claims) doesn't know if god exists or not and does believe.
gnostic theism: one who (typically claims) does know if god exists or not, and believes.
I can't recall many people claiming they aren't sure if a God exists or not.
I can several times, I do all the time, and if you really want to know, make a debate that asks who considers themselves to be agnostic, and I am sure unless people think you are talking about "pure agnosticism" the atheists on this site will tell you they are agnostic.
Please explain the Australian termite then, for starters, with reasonable scientific evidence.
I'm not familiar with the idea that Australian termites present a problem for the theory of evolution, but would like to read about it. Could you point me to a source?
First off, I know of no atheist who has ANY problem with ANY part of evolution. Anything that comes about can be explained away in their mind.
I actually don't know if you are an atheist, but here is the article for you to read, since you asked for it. BTW, I don't know if your are an atheist, just assuming. I hope to get your response to this.
mankinds-last-hope.org then click on proof that god exists, then the australian termite
