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.
By believing in God and following you are already being as logical as you can be.
Although there are plenty of contentions to that statement, let's be reminded that this question was about Christianity, not theism in general. So, along with God we also have-
1. All people are born in sin, due to the actions of Adam and Eve. There are 2 reasons for this which are either coexistent or interchangeable.
A) They disobeyed God. Is it logical to assume that all of their progeny down throughout the generations will do so? Should the punishments like physical death, getting kicked out of paradise and hell and whatnot be automatically applied to all before they even have a chance to sin?
B) They ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This apparently created a permanent change in the species, that guarantees sin. First, this implies that knowledge is a bad thing. Second this implies that knowledge of something will make you do that something, which is demonstrably wrong (everyone is aware that murder is possible and know of multiple ways to kill, yet not everyone kills people). Third, this completely ignores the "Knowledge of Good" aspect, placing total emphasis on evil.
2. For thousands of years, there was no way around this, but eventually God created a "loophole" of sorts in the form a Jesus Christ. Why did he wait so long, damning untold people to hell after physical death? Did he change his mind, and if so: how can a perfect entity change its mind anyway?
A) Jesus' sacrifice is said to atone for humanity, pay the toll in to Heaven so to speak for the rest of us. This essentially amounts to God creating an unnecessarily elaborate scenario to establish new rules to the equation. What is the good of sacrificing yourself/your son if a) you are not the one committing the crime in the first place, b) it won't actually erase the debt of sin from future generations in the first place?
B) Jesus was aware that he was God, and even if not, that he would not actually die, and would rise to walk the Earth again. That isn't much of a sacrifice. It would be a lot more compelling if he knew he would be at his literal end, both physically and spiritually. THAT would be a legitimate sacrifice. As written, it just a show.
3. The real emphasis is basically not so much on being the best person you can be, but on simply believing in God and in Jesus as your savior, and apologizing before you die. This puts us in a scenario where a horrible murderer can enter heaven as long as he believes, but a good, generous person who never intentionally harmed a soul would go to hell if he does not believe. What good does this do for humanity? Logic?
Further, as far as unprovable and untestable premises go, Christianity does not stop at God. There is also Heaven, Hell, Angels, Satan, souls and myriad other concepts that have no more support than God or the divinity of Jesus. Each requires one extra heap of faith and faith is not logical by nature.
Possibly. What I do know is that gods were once assumed to be everything, and in some cases they still are. If they believed everything to be the creative force behind life, then they certainly could not have been wrong.
The creative force is everything, just as everything is the creative force. Sounds kind of whacky at first, I know... But it truly is obvious if you think about it.
You just made it sound like that he only knows about the documented ones and I could only think that his problem would be that he doesn't know how many Gods there are.
I don't like calling the creative force God when we have the word nature. Nature is everything and nature has all the characteristics needed. Calling it God keeps turning into making God something more than nature. I hope I didn't ramble on too much.
You just made it sound like that he only knows about the documented ones and I could only think that his problem would be that he doesn't know how many Gods there are.
That's because everyone's ideas of gods are just that... Ideas.
I don't like calling the creative force God when we have the word nature.
You can call it whatever you like, but it is obvious that it is a creative force. Life was implied in those atoms, if that is what started this all.
Nature is everything and nature has all the characteristics needed. Calling it God keeps turning into making God something more than nature.
Nature is just a term, just as god is. The problem is that everyone assumes what God may be, but they are really too blind to see that they are God. They ARE that creative force. We started at a single point. Just as a seed to a tree, we were implied within that seed. The seed and the tree are not separate. The seed grew into a tree.
I've been told that more than once regarding that sort of outlook LOL! Can you dispute any of that though? Feeling like we are connected to the earth has become a "hippy" trait, but no one ever stops to think that maybe we are in fact connected to the earth, in a bigger sense than we just live on it.
My only problem with what you are saying is that you are saying that God is a creative force, and humans are a creative force, therefore humans are God. Kind of like squares and rectangles. The reason for my weed comment is that you are changing the aspects of God that I am familiar with and coming up with something that doesn't sound "sober".
I like the idea in some respect. Every time someone says that we can't know how God works I think to myself, "we know so much other stuff, why not this?" The fact that we create plays into both ideas.
In religion, there is a common theme, which is that we were created from the Earth. Even in Judaism and Christianity, Adam was made from the dust of the Earth, and of course Eve was made from Adam.
If you don't believe in that, you still believe that the earth was essential to our creation. Everything on our planet, comes from our planet (unless someone owns a moon rock or something like that). But like I said, a seed that grows into a tree is still that seed... Just bigger. The Earth is a seed, that from it came everything on it. We did not just appear, we grew from it... Just as a tree grows from a seed (which needs to be planted in the earth first).
A bush may contain leaves, flowers, thorns, twigs, berries... But all of those are still connected to the bush. Without the bush, they would not exist. They are the bush.
By connected, I mean related... And by related, I mean we are it lol.
People believe that God made us and put us on the earth... But we know that anything on the earth did not come into it, but rather came out of it. We are one giant thing. You cannot have something without it's opposite. For example, planets would not be planets without space.
Dude. Aren't you saying that people think you are weird for saying we are connected? Doesn't that mean they believe we aren't connected? Do you have any idea how people wouldn't think we are not connected?
If you research the old stories of the little people (Faeries and the like) a lot of them aren't as friendly as people would have you believe according to the old legends Faeries used to steal Children, the old and infirm until a pact was formed between humans and the Fey that when children's teeth fell out they would be left for the Faeries as tribute, in turn the Faeries would leave something of value to the humans and would stop stealing people, over time the story was watered down to be made more child friendly and so the modern story of the nice sweet tooth fairy was born
With the Hidu gods it is quite different situation, every little shithole had it's own that ruled only the village, kind of a B grade god that probably could not do world wide flood or so.... :D
I think both sides are illogical to an extent but it stands to reason that the universe didn't happen by pure chance, random explosions, and one microscopic piece of matter. There are natural laws we are all beholden to and really the very idea that logic exists has to do with intelligent thought. At a sub-atomic level people can actually define what they see through a microscope simply by altering their perception of it. There is definitely a rational driving force behind all of creation because if there wasn't all would be pure chaos. Anything science fails to explain it simply ignores or tries to discredit and really I don't see any difference between "atheistic science" and "Byzantine Catholicism" since they both ignore facts whenever convenient to push their agenda.
Logic is formed by observing nature. Seeing the way things work, and to logically assume they will continually work that way or change according to a pattern that was also observed.
Logically speaking, we can no longer observe any of the odd facts Christians believes. However atheists don't have to believe and are only subject to observation.
The universe had a beginning. To counter this claim. Many unbelievers make the argument that the universe as we know it has always existed and is infinite. These arguments work in theory, not in real life. It is the same reason there is a difference between pure math and applied math. If the universe had no beginning, then the number of events to reach the present point would be infinite as well. It would be like counting to zero from negative infinity. Since infinity is only an idea and one cannot actually have an infinity or negative infinity, then the present moment could never had arrived if the universe had no beginning. Since the present is real, it must have a finite past and therefore there was a beginning.
In the above we proved the universe had a beginning. Why is this so important? Since time, matter, and space did not exist earlier than the beginning of the universe, the cause of the universe had to be timeless, space-less, and immaterial. This cause cannot be physical or subject to scientific law since all other cause include either time, matter, or space. The cause also had to bring the universe into existence without changing to do so, making the case for a supernaturally caused beginning very strong.
"Many unbelievers make the argument that the universe as we know it has always existed and is infinite."
Note, this is many, and this is not all. Note this is also a theory, not a recognized statement that would be defended as fact.
This is where Christianity and atheism differ. Christianity can not be more logical than anything that asserts with proof, or doesn't assert as fact, when Christianity will assert without proof, as if it were fact.
I'd also like to note that this is merely one instance, that if it were true, would be recognizing atheism as less logical than Christianity. Other instances that can be found in the bible, that are contradicted by the way the world actually works, are way more numerous, and in favor of atheism being more logical than Christianity.
You should have categorized your argument as clarified, not disputing, since you didn't dispute anything. This is not a proof, but THE proof. You acknowledged Christianity is more logical than atheism with this point, but this is about the creation of the universe! If you do not deal with this point, why do you bother with the rest? If the creation of the universe, our very beginning, suggests very strongly if not indefinitely, that the universe is caused by a supernatural power, how can you deny it?
I was telling you what you said was wrong, if anything is a dispute, that is.
However, let me stop you again. Our beginning is still not proven, by Christianity or by atheists and by way of science, so to say that either side is more logical about or beginning would have to assume that one side knows. The only side that claims to know doesn't actually know, therefore it is not logical to say they know when they don't.
As for the debate question it asks if one is more logical than two. The key word being more. Christianity is loaded with illogical beliefs, where as atheism claims nothing.
Our beginning is still not proven, by Christianity or by atheists and by way of science, so to say that either side is more logical about or beginning would have to assume that one side knows. The only side that claims to know doesn't actually know, therefore it is not logical to say they know when they don't.
You are missing the point. Both sides acknowledge there WAS a beginning. The only times that is not claimed is when this exact point comes up. Then all of a sudden nobody knows anything and we go into "no absolute truths" land. But that's not the point. The point is what caused the beginning? We KNOW there is a beginning. It is touched on by science, but mainly proved by logic which is what atheists claim to have a monopoly over. So can you answer either one of these questions?
I can't answer the question what caused toe beginning with an answer that i know for certain, because no one knows for certain. Christians however can answer it with an answer they claim to know for certain, that can't be proven.
Many unbelievers make the argument that the universe as we know it has always existed and is infinite. how many?
...This cause cannot be physical or subject to scientific law since all other cause include either time, matter, or space t ...argument for magic ? By making impossible claim, interesting :D
...argument for magic ? By making impossible claim, interesting :D
Ummm no, not magic. Explain to me a cause for the universe before it even existed if you have one please. The word "before" denotes time so that muddies the water of what I mean. If I say "before" the Big Bang Theory, this is using a description of time and asking for a timed event before time even existed. Rather time did not exist, so we must conclude the cause must not have time. Since space and matter are tied to time, they did not exist either. Please, cite me a cause for the universe outside of a Creator that is not tied to time, space, or matter.
I DON'T KNOW HOW AND IF UNIVERSE BEGUN NEITHER DO YOU!
and referring to idiotic tales just makes you look retarded. Your logic is fucked, based of truly retarded premise that everything needs a creator which makes infinite line, you cannot have something between by making up properties to something that exists only in 3000 years old fairy tale with talking animals.
referring to idiotic tales just makes you look retarded
Not really. Although they disagree with me strongly, it doesn't make me look retarded. Although he disagrees with me and thus debates me, Cartman sees me as SEMI-reasonable, and others feel the same way. Having a belief system does not make you retarded. I can support my belief logically, just because you fail to see major points I make due to your prejudice, does not make me retarded. In fact the language you use and sudden loss of debate skills at this time makes you lose credibility in your arguments. People who see this may agree, but should also se you have no real argument and are simply going off without any argument behind it.
I DON'T KNOW HOW AND IF UNIVERSE BEGUN NEITHER DO YOU!
I may not but at least answer one of these questions since I apparently know nothing
1)How does the universe not have a beginning?
or back to my original question
2) How does the universe begin of not be a supernatural cause?
1. It simply does not have to. I cannot write equations here, in least it does not takes LaTeX... but imagine this 1 one represents the "ordinary matter" and -1 represents "anti matter" all together they make -1+1=0 = nothing, what you need is initial change in balance, simplest one known is called Casimir's effect when matter appears randomly from "nowhere".
My try to explain something is based on long term observation in combination with many times redone experiments.
Yours on the other side is purely based on Stone age version of Harry Potter.
2 Supernatural cause is not solution of anything, it is just another step. It' in principle pointless, especially in combination with mythology it looks just sad.
Your logic is fucked, based of truly retarded premise that everything needs a creator
I once read that the universe beginning randomly and accidentally, is like a monkey sitting at a typewriter and accidentally typing an entire encyclopedia.
I once read that the universe beginning randomly and accidentally, is like a monkey sitting at a typewriter and accidentally typing an entire encyclopedia.
Monkey and typing machine are two very complex systems, both from different environments. They have different past.
However in system where time is not an issue, at the end monkey will type infinite number of Encyclopedias simply because infinite time includes also infinite number of all possible combinations.
So your monkey scenario is in this reference very likely. Which can't be said about gods...
Monkey and typing machine are two very complex systems, both from different environments. They have different past.
They exist together.
However in system where time is not an issue, at the end monkey will type infinite number of Encyclopedias simply because infinite time includes also infinite number of all possible combinations.
So do you believe that anything can accomplish anything when given an unlimited amount of time?
Do you believe that life started with the Big Bang?
Okay, me too. So, back to the monkey analogy... You believe it is possible for a monkey to eventually create something that is intelligible when given enough time. I assume that you have come to this conclusion because the monkey has intelligence, unlike, let's say, rain. So because the monkey has intelligence, then intelligent and intelligible creations are implied, correct?
That depends ... with standard 6 sided dice you cannot roll out number 7, no matter how many times you throw.
So, six sided dice was not designed to roll a seven. Of course. When rolling the dice, you know that you are going to land on a number ranging from 1-6. Those numbers are implied within the dice.
The Big Bang started with two atoms, correct? At least that is the theory.
However the monkey had standard typewriter capable of all possible combination needed so it is possible for monkey to do so.
So within that typewriter was implication of an encyclopedia, but to create that encyclopedia, you would need something with intelligence to push the buttons. So for something intelligible to be created, you need something with intelligence. Sounds good to me.
So within that typewriter was implication of an encyclopedia, but to create that encyclopedia, you would need something with intelligence to push the buttons. So for something intelligible to be created, you need something with intelligence. Sounds good to me.
No you do not need anything intelligent to use the typewriter... you just need time.
The Big Bang started with two atoms, correct? At least that is the theory
No, there were no atoms or no matter at all, it was a release of space and energy, first 300 000 years universe was not transparent at all. Gravity caused contraction and high pressure that fused glutton plasma together, with pressure comes heat and that is pretty much where Protostars came from, they were very light not like our sun, were much brighter and burned much faster. After they blowup the have released material which started contracting again but that material was heavier from it's center were created second generation stars like our sun from accretion disks after explosion were created planets...
I have very simplified all the thing. There are free well done documents on the Youtube.
Many unbelievers make the argument that the universe as we know it has always existed and is infinite.
That has not been a common argument amongst non-believers since wide acceptance of Big Bang theory emerged. Its only a specific aspect of the universe, energy, that is cited as being eternal. Since matter is identified as being a format of energy, there are basically two components to the universe: energy and the various forces and laws that refine and shape energy into its various wavelengths, particles and ultimately matter. The energy in its pure form is effectively eternal in that it cannot be created or destroyed, and as such was present in the singularity that "preceded" the big bang. The defining factors, namely forces, dimensions and time, came about AFTER the Big Bang. Those factors mold "the universe as we know it", so no, we don't claim this universe is eternal, simply that the energy that makes it up is. The singularity could be argued to be a different form of universe, as well as there could be an infinite series of expansions and contractions, an infinite series of Universes, each of which could have their own set of forces and dimensions, thus potentially creating infinite variations on the concept of Universe. But no one permeation of Universe is likely to be "eternal".
After this you make a variety of statements I can more or less agree on, but then there is this...
The cause also had to bring the universe into existence without changing to do so
You haven't really explained why this is so, basically just stated it as fact. So...support this assertion.
The cause also had to bring the universe into existence without changing to do so.
If it had to change before bringing the universe into existence, then that change would be an event begging the need for time and thus would ruin the cause in being timeless.
Interestingly, you and I both have an item, "preceding" the Big Bang, that would be "timeless, space-less, and immaterial"; the singularity for me, God for you. There are other key points in which they differ, but let us look at these characteristics for the moment.
In all cases, I identify the singularity as being free of those boundaries because they did not exist within it. So you can argue that the "infinity" that characterized the singularity was more of a faux-infinity, infinite as long as there was no defining characteristic in play to not make it so. It wasn't true infinity, which works well for this conversation since you argued that there is no such thing as true infinity anyway, and I agree with that notion.
What exactly changed the singularity into something that now experience time and space is speculative, but it is no longer that way. Once time became a factor, the singularity was no longer possible because now everything is subject to time. Essentially we went from a situation where the present universe was impossible because of lack of definition, to a situation where the singularity was no longer possible due to definition. If I were to be able to find an analogue for God in all of this it would be that the singularity was God, the universe is its corpse. Of course I have reasons to separate the singularity from God, so this is metaphorical, but how is God immune to this proposition?
If I were to be able to find an analogue for God in all of this it would be that the singularity was God, the universe is its corpse. Of course I have reasons to separate the singularity from God, so this is metaphorical, but how is God immune to this proposition?
As you said the singularity is subject to time, that makes it the beginning. That would be the first event in the universe, its existence. The cause of universe must immaterial, timeless, and spaceless as we have already stated. As you have said, it cannot be the singularity because it is subject to time and thus the first event. So once again, we are back to square one. What is this timeless, massless, spaceless cause? God is all of these, while the singularity is subject to time, meaning God and the singularity are separate from each other. How is God immune to this proposition? Because he is timeless, immaterial, and spaceless. God is also said to be all-powerful. Us being human and God being well...God, I don't pretend to know how this works.
This, of course, is the point in the discussion when things get pretty complicated. One, we are dealing with concepts that are not only purely hypothetical and are undoubtedly shaped by factors beyond not only our current knowledge base but possibly beyond our comprehension (and that would be true regardless of which of us, if either, is correct). Two, I will admit that I'm not an expert on cosmology or quantum physics so I need to realize that there is significant margin for error in my assessments and this boils down to a thought exercise more than a battle of facts. However....
As you said the singularity is subject to time
Not at all. Nobody knows for certain what role time could have conceivably played in the singularity, or even what exactly time is. Einstein proved that it can be manipulated by gravity, speed and other factors. It has since been treated as a dimension, popularly identified as the fourth, but some of my favorite physicists are proposing that it isn't actually a dimension and runs alongside all of them and is emergent with them. Whatever makes space possible, makes time possible. Neither are believed to have been at all possible within the singularity. It didn't have distance, how could it have duration? If it is true that time did not emerge until space did (ie after the first moment of the Big Bang, which is generally accepted as the most apparent answer) then it did not play any role in the Singularity. It couldn't. This makes the singularity the most literally "timeless" concept we can get.
that makes it the beginning.
"Beginnings" and "endings", causality as a whole, is reliant on time being active. As is our comprehension of these matters. This is a why I've been putting quotation marks around "preceding" in my past few arguments. Because in our linear mindset, we automatically perceive the singularity as "before" the Big Bang, but if that is true, it was "before" time as well and that is impossible within the constraints of our observed linearity. So what the heck does this mean? How can we visualize it properly? CAN we actually conceptualize this with accuracy?
Well, we can vaguely account for it by trying to identify a non-temporal replacement for linearity, but this would not be active on our level. We could also recognize time as not being truly linear, but essentially circular. In that cycle, a beginning and end would be meaningless, once again referring us to non-temporal linearity.
Or maybe, there is a sort of "meta-time" going on, something overarching the highest level of dimensionality and actuality we can conceptualize? Hell if I know.
Point is, the singularity as I have been proposing is eternal in that it is literally timeless, and that is a an aspect that would have to change for a linear universe to be possible. That doesn't mean it is subject to time, its just a representation of a crazy paradox: When everything is possible due to lack of defining characteristics, everything is equally impossible because it has no defining characteristics.
I apologize for the rambling, this ain't exactly a simple matter to discuss :)
You believe it to be impossible for the universe to have always existed, but possible for God to have always existed?
Why is this so important? Since time, matter, and space did not exist earlier than the beginning of the universe, the cause of the universe had to be timeless, space-less, and immaterial.
Space is nothing without something. Also, time does not exist. Never has, never will. As we know, the Earth rotates around the sun. A circle has neither a starting point, nor an ending point. We do have light and darkness, but darkness is nothing without light, just as light is nothing without darkness. The sun and the moon (which is not darkness, it's just less bright) rotate around the Earth, having neither a start nor a finish.
We picture time in a straight line, just constantly increasing... But how can that be if what gives us our entire notion of time, is something that rotates around us? Do the hands on a clock start at 12:00... Or do they merely pass it and keep going?
The cause also had to bring the universe into existence without changing to do so, making the case for a supernaturally caused beginning very strong.
This may surprise you, but I actually do agree that we had to have a supernatural beginning, but not as it is told in the Christian tradition.
"Space is nothing without something." that is BS, space is a set of properties, dimensions, laws etc... it is not nothing just because there is no matter in it, same as empty bottle does not disappear.
Time is rate of exchange of energy, it is no a moving constant on its own, it differs with speed and gravity. it is not uniform thing going from A to B, there was no ultimate beginning.
"Space is nothing without something." that is BS, space is a set of properties, dimensions, laws etc... it is not nothing just because there is no matter in it, same as empty bottle does not disappear.
Everything has an opposite. Without space, would we have planets? Without planets, what would space be? No gravity implies gravity. Cold implies heat. The yin makes the yang.
What was space before the Big Bang?
Time is rate of exchange of energy, it is no a moving constant on its own, it differs with speed and gravity. it is not uniform thing going from A to B, there was no ultimate beginning.
Trumpet Guy, excellent post! One of the best ever posted here. Just one thing I would like to add though. If anyone ever questions you about the universe not having an absolute beginning, just bring up the BVG theorem. It is as close a certainty to absolute proof as you can get.
Only a delusional, uneducated, militant atheist will dispute the BVG theorem. A rational atheist who can understand science will accept it. Anyone that tells you the BVG is wrong, please ignore them. It isn't worth your time to argue with a fool.
Trupet guy truly beliefs that universe was created by wizard in six days, he is a delusional moron. BVG never even made it to theory, it is as likely as talking snakes offering magical fruits.
Actually no. I believe God used the Big Bang to create the universe. If you are going to call me a delusion moron, at least read what I have repeated several times. I support the expanding universe theory commonly referred as the big bang theory. Just a tip before you call those that believe in the "wizard" morons, one of the idealist behind the expanding universe theory was a Belgian priest.
Why would God have created the universe with the big bang theory? If he is an omnipotent being why couldn't he have created the universe out of nothing instead of creating it through an explosion that took millions of year to actually form anything and billions to form Earth and more for life to start?
Why does a painter paint rather than taking a photograph? While the second is faster, the first takes alot more skill and skill to accomplish (I apologize to any photographers out there). Painting a picture also causes a passerby to stare in wonder at the skill of an artist, the quality of the brushstrokes. The same is true for a ARTISTICALLY taken photograph. The photography has to get the lighting and shadow correct, wait for the right position or arrange it, etc. Both take time and effort, but make the final product all more worthwhile and has a greater impact on the observer.
Well there's your problem. You are talking about knowledge acquired through applying inductive reasoning to empirical evidence, you aren't talking about logic.
There are a load of really far fetched bible stories that make absolutely nonsense at all an no sensible person would believe them. Also Christians are illogical because they deny things such as the Big Bang Theory and Evolution which have a lot of evidence for.
