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.
A flaw in the bible,don't you mean a flaw in the Hebrew scripts,as a bible is a book,translated by some redneck who thought he knew what he was doing.I was told at school that black is black,but you don't see black as your eye only lets in the left over colours that the object didn't absorb.A black object absorbs all colours of the light spectrum,so your eye gets no colour information so the brain must make a decision as to why the eye sees nothing,but we must invent something for the nothing,BLACK.Is GOD just a black for our brain,cause our eye sees nothing,but we need to give our "thoughts" a name for it,as it creates a thought,so it must be something,conciousness,that is why you get spiritually moved,as you are linking yourself with another conciousness,thinking similar things.If you are under 60 years old then you will see the biggest movement,EVER,(knowledge is power),and it takes power to KNOW,so once you know,you will find,what most humans have asked all along,WHY do Christians walk straight past poor people and turn a blind eye to it,I mean Jesus feed thousands,why,he didn't have to,but he wanted to,cause he knew that for man to survive,he must share what he has extra,and extra will come to him,when he is without.
You all want to fight,who is right,my own mother works tirelessly with the community,day in,day out,and her religious friend keeps saying,why do you do this,if you wre a Christian,it would gain you status in heaven,but you choose hard work.My mother says"it is only hard work,cause you expect a reward,so you wouldn't do it without a reward,that is why heaven is empty,and will never have a member",if GOD ever started this experiment,he left the stove and turned it off a long,long time ago,but please keep fighting as every person that conflicts with an opposite,than something must come from nothing,just as nothing will come from something,get it,now FUCK OFF????????
I believe there's something, whether its a supreme being or force of nature I don't know and it can't be proven so that side of it is irrelevant, I just believe there is something more about life and the world than we can comprehend fully
God exist because He created the universe with His words. He watches over us, protects us, loves us, and forgives us of our wrong doings, and brings miracles to all of us. For example, a man was fired from his job because he lacked experience of it, but he tried and tried again to find a new job because he still thinks that their is hope that someday he would find a job that is suitable for him. After 2 months of searching and is about to give up, he saw a help wanted sign in a convenient store and asked the owner of the store if he could work their. The owner tested him first by stacking food in a proper order which he did. The store owner gave the man a second test, he asked what is he good at, the man replied that he tried his best to be an engineer but failed, the only thing he could do besides engineering was selling good stuff with a good price when he was selling some fruits he planted in his yard after he was fired from his first job. The store owner told the man to impress a customer near the counter. The man went to the counter and impressed the customer by showing the customer's product was good and well. The store owner told him to come back to the store if the store owner called him on the phone. The man went home and waited for two weeks and after two weeks, the store owner called him on the phone and told the man he got the job. The man was filled with happiness and joy again once more and started working there. The lesson of this story is to never give up, just keep going until you finally seek your true dreams because God will guide you to your suitable dreams. Besides this story I said to you all, God can make many miracles. A father watching his son playing and winning a baseball game, and a mother attended and watching her two children graduate high school. Now that's is the beauty of God's miracles.
William Lane Craig (PhD and Professor) had said that empty space is not nothing. A void (or empty space) is still space, even though empty. It is still a dimension. Now a dimensionless state is nothing, empty space is something. According to Scotus Dun’s (Oxford graduate and scholar) argument of causes and effects there has to be a cause for an effect. An endless amount of causes (like the universe always existing) is impossible. In ancient Greece there was once a god named “chaos”, which literally was nothing. But they treated it as a god (or a supreme being) because it led to the creation of the other gods. Now scientifically, the universe happened when “nothing” began to vibrate and created a void, and continued vibrating until a small microscopic particle called the Higgs Boson (aka “the God particle”or particle that gives everything mass) exploded and created the expansion of the universe which led to the creation of 9 dimensions. 8 spatial and 1 temporal. Which led to mass but technically did not create mass because mass is positive and gravity is negative. So the total amount of mass and gravity equals out to zero, so it still follows the law of conservation of mass. Keep in mind before the big bang, time (the temporal dimension), did not exist. And after the big bang height, width, and depth were created, as well as time, which were 4 of the said dimensions. So as the universe expanded it created atoms which eventually fused and created suns and planets. One of which planet was earth. And the first life forms arose (cyanobacteria); which later led to humans. Now genetically all humans can be traced back to one male and one female, and in the book of Genesis the first humans were one male (Adam) and one female (eve). And the Dead Sea scrolls do not rule out evolution. In fact they support it. In the book of Enoch it describes Giant’s that walked the earth before and alongside humans, which supports fossil evidence of human evolution. Now explain to me how 5,000 years before genetic testing people knew that humanity started with one male and one female. Also describe how the Greeks would know about the vibration that led to the creation of the universe, even naming it, before modern science. And finally how can you explain how “nothing” can vibrate and lead to the something before TIME even existed? There scientifically had to have been someone to create that effect, because an effect can’t happen without a cause, it’s scientifically impossible. Plus the laws such as conservation of mass and physics are organized, and the Universe is spontaneous, and scientifically only intelligent life can set laws. Like Isaac Newton and John Scotus Duns both said that no cause can happen without an effect, and “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” sounds familiar doesn't it? Because without a cause there can be no effect, and there can be no endless amount of causes. How can you say that the universe created itself? Not only does that go against John Scotus Duns argument, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, but even Einstein ruled out Atheism. Something will not and has not ever been created from nothing.
William Lane Craig (PhD and Professor) had said that empty space is not nothing.
as soon as you quote WLC you lose. He is NOT a professor and has a phD in philosophy which is completely irrelavant to the topic discussed here which is astrophysics and the like. He is a creationist liar and shit peddler like the rest of him and nothing he says should be taken seriously. I didnt even read the rest of what you wrote after this sentance because ive heard the schpiel he does many times before and all i can say is look this stuff up yourself and dont take it from the mouth of a well known deceitful lunatic.
If the qualifications for being a professor is to have taught a couple classes at some college at some point in your life then sure hes a professor. I have a little higher of a standard for who im going to call a professor but you do your thing.
He's a professor. And he also holds a PhD and if you've seemed to have forgotten he's also won various debates against atheists. Atheism is the belief in nothing, therefore you have nothing to argue. Unless you have a PhD in quantum mechanics and would like to enlighten us on your vast discoveries? lol.
HAHAHAHAHA i just googled him hes a fucking philosophy professor at the Talbot School of Theology!!!! HAHAHAHA what a fucking useless title! Thats as significant as a pre-school teacher!! Wow that is so pathetic i didnt think it was that bad but wow that blew my mind. And i have yet to find any debate hes won so if you wanna send me a link go for it.
Atheism is not the belief in nothing. its a LACK of belief in a God/Deity get your definitions right please.
And why are you pestering me about quantum mechanics when your go-to source is a loony with a usless degree from a laughably pathetic church school?
So I'm assuming that you don't hold a PhD? And you're not a professor? The definition of atheism "the theory or belief that God does not exist." maybe you need to check your sources again. And btw William lane Craig's education consists of " Wheaton College, University of Birmingham, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich" which are schools that are not just Christian schools last time I checked :P. Maybe you need to go back to school. Or at least attend a class or two if you haven't already. lol.
No I don't. Because I'm 17. But someday I will and it will be from a reputable college. I don't have to be a professor with a phd to laugh at his petty titles. That school is a joke and his phd is a joke because he is a joke. And your definition of atheism is WRONG. I'm guessing you got that from him or his kind or some theist/creationist website.
A- creates a negative (lacking, non, not, dis)
Theism/t- the belief in a god/deity/religious belief set
Literally: the lack of/no belief in a god/deity. It isn't hard. Go to merriam websters dictionary because its you who needs to check your sources asshole.
As for the next part, whoopie do he went to a bunch of schools. We don't know what he studied at these places (probably philosophy and theology) nor how long he stayed at each one. And ultimately who gives a fuck? I care about what he is NOW. And that is a jackwaggon professor wannabe from a laughable Christian creationist school. And even then I don't care. What REALLY matters is what he talks about and claims which consists of lies and pseudo science in fields he isn't qualified or experienced in. So ultimately he could be a grad from Harvard or MIT and it still doesn't make him a reputable source. And I don't need to go to school to see that. It's called the Internet. You seem to know how to use it, just not where to go. Don't worry you can take some night classes for it buddy.
Unless you have anyway to dispute and give reasons why "the shit he says shouldn't be taken seriously" then he is right by process of deductive reasoning. And you should probably do it in proper English.
"the shit he says shouldn't be taken seriously" What part of that statement was in spanish? or dutch? hebrew maybe?
And no actually he isnt right by deductive reasoning you quack. Ever hear of the burden of proof? Unless HE can demonstrate and prove what he is saying is correct (space is nothingness and the like) then i can disbelieve it by default. Just because someone cant disprove an idea doesnt make that idea true by default. For example, i could say that theres a planet beyond pluto made of tuna casserole and its invisible. Well nobody can disprove that or give any reason why it isnt true. Does that make me right by process of deductive reasoning? No.
I have been presented quite a few god claims, but never have any of them been demonstrated to be true. Many of the natural occurrences that have been attributed to gods in the past, like lightning and rainbows, have been explained by science. Those people had faith in their gods like people do today, I see no reason to believe any of them.
People in the past truly believed that it was IMPOSSIBLE to fly, speaking to somebody halfway across the world(Texting, AIM)), seeing someone halfway across the world(Facetime, Skype), and exploring and landing on other planets. Just because science has not discovered or proved God does not mean he does not exist. You remind me of one of those "People of the Past" who deny everything until VOILA! it's proven.
Please clarify on what you mean by "Evidence"? Is it something that you want to see, touch, feel, taste, hear? Something that is proven by Science?
It is completely ILLOGICAL to say that God does not exist because based off of what you said you do not have evidence YET. God did not appear to you in whatever form and said "Hey i exist". Whereas in my case, someone cannot completely with all the hard-proof and evidence come to a conclusion and say "He does not exist".
The reason why this is a complete illogical fallacy is because human beings are just BEGINNING to delve deep into studying the oceans, space, and galaxies that exist, let alone the things we have not found. Our earth is like a ring in the desert, and we barely can even get to Mars let alone other galaxies. Prove to me that God does not exist(You can take your entire lifetime to prove that to me but the only proof and rebuttal you will ever make is "Prove to ME that he does?".
Please clarify on what you mean by "Evidence"? Is it something that you want to see, touch, feel, taste, hear? Something that is proven by Science?
That and logic, which doesn't point to God at all in my opinion.
It is completely ILLOGICAL to say that God does not exist because based off of what you said you do not have evidence YET.
As much sense as it makes to say unicorns don't exist. I agree but if I had to bet on one way or the other I'd bet on god's nonexistence. To state God doesn't exist as an assertion is a little less logical than to doubt God does exist in the first place from skepticism.
Whereas in my case, someone cannot completely with all the hard-proof and evidence come to a conclusion and say "He does not exist".
I forget who said this but what can be believed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The reason why this is a complete illogical fallacy is because human beings are just BEGINNING to delve deep into studying the oceans, space, and galaxies that exist, let alone the things we have not found. Our earth is like a ring in the desert, and we barely can even get to Mars let alone other galaxies.
Which is why those who doubt unicorns are silly to right?
Prove to me that God does not exist(You can take your entire lifetime to prove that to me but the only proof and rebuttal you will ever make is "Prove to ME that he does?".
Yes because the burden of proof is on the theist, before one can even imply the inexistence of God, one should have to imply God does exist in the first place. Before you can question the existence of something, the existence of something has to be acknowledged. Therefore theism made the first claim, therefore theism as a whole has to back it up. Gods inexistence isn't a fact that is no more true than unicorns however.
.
.
.
.
Let me show you what your argument looks like to us.
" Please clarify on what you mean by "Evidence"? Is it something that you want to see, touch, feel, taste, hear? Something that is proven by Science? It is completely ILLOGICAL to say that UNICORNS does not exist because based off of what you said you do not have evidence YET. UNICORNS did not appear to you in whatever form and said "Hey we exist". Whereas in my case, someone cannot completely with all the hard-proof and evidence come to a conclusion and say "They do not exist". The reason why this is a complete illogical fallacy is because human beings are just BEGINNING to delve deep into studying the oceans, space, and galaxies that exist, let alone the things we have not found. Our earth is like a ring in the desert, and we barely can even get to Mars let alone other galaxies. Prove to me that UNICORNS don't exist(You can take your entire lifetime to prove that to me but the only proof and rebuttal you will ever make is "Prove to ME that they do?"."
Except for the fact that that was before modern science. And now even modern scientists have overwhelming proof and deductive arguments for his (or it's) existence.
Clearly you don't have anything to argue with. On the debate you bring nothing new to the table, so I think that it is fair to say I could come up with any argument I want. But you have trouble making even the most simple of explination.
Demonstrate for us. Explain how evidence says a god does not exist. Do this logically as well with a convincing implication of knowledge that can actually be deemed as something that makes a deity nearly impossible to exist.
Exactly as I thought. Making claims with no backing. I would tell you to stop being childish, but what would that do to benefit me? Nothing. Either show us this evidence that makes a deity near impossbile or do not try. I have no time to play games with idiots.
Oops. Poor diction. Ignore the word claims. Now answer my argument. Show us this evidence that a deity is near impossible to exist. Otherwise I see no reason as to even continue debating with you.
Many of the natural occurrences that have been attributed to gods in the past, like lightning and rainbows, have been explained by science. Those people had faith in their gods like people do today, I see no reason to believe any of them.
First, the sentiment you are giving off is that science is making a deity seem non existent. Second, you say "I see no reasonto believe in them". This allows me to conclude that you have indeed thought about this and favor that science is showing us that God doesn't exist. Now are you going to continue dancing around this or are you just going to show me the evidence that make a deity near impossible to exist? If you wont answer this then I am done with this.
First, the sentiment you are giving off is that science is making a deity seem non existent.
I'm saying that we have examples of people making false claims about deities.
Second, you say "I see no reasonto believe in them". This allows me to conclude that you have indeed thought about this and favor that science is showing us that God doesn't exist.
You are misquoting me. I said I see no reason to believe any of them, meaning I have no reason to believe any of the people who make god claims based on faith. But I also see no reason to believe in any deities, as they are supported by as much evidence as Thought-Gnomes. (none)
Now are you going to continue dancing around this or are you just going to show me the evidence that make a deity near impossible to exist?
First, the sentiment you are giving off is that science is making a deity seem non existent.
No, the fact that your deity works in completely random ways, just like nature makes your deity non existent.
Second, you say "I see no reasonto believe in them". This allows me to conclude that you have indeed thought about this and favor that science is showing us that God doesn't exist.
He is showing that God's lack of existence is showing that God doesn't exist.
Now are you going to continue dancing around this or are you just going to show me the evidence that make a deity near impossible to exist?
I wonder when Stryker will actually make this claim.
Hey, I have a question for you. How many things need to be explained by science before you realize there is no God? Seeing as you have 0 things that can be fully attributed to God.
Actually, you started it. Stryker said that things that idiots used to think were explained by God can now be explained through science. He did not say he had evidence that God does not exist.
Oh, I know! You don't have to try very hard to convince other people that you are right... but convincing her is nearly impossible! Offending her on the other hand... is very easy. She's banned me from all of her debates and blocked me from her messages when I tried to continue the debate there lol.
So, everything exists until proven that it doesn't exist? But, when he asks you about thought gnomes, he is avoiding the question. He told you exactly why he doesn't believe God exists. The stuff that people used to think was God has been explained by science. Since we have explained one thing that God has done was not done by Him we have disproved Him, by your logic.
If he used my logic he only made God another possibility. He didn't prove he doesn't exist. He brought up another thing we cant prove correct or incorrect which is what I am trying to say because people will say that is fine but when its God its not.
Your logic is that anything that is for or against proves it. Your only reason for thinking that God exists is that you think that God exists. He then only needs to give one reason why God does not exists because you have provided nothing.
If he used my logic he only made God another possibility.
Correct, I never said the existence of a supreme being was impossible.
He brought up another thing we cant prove correct or incorrect which is what I am trying to say because people will say that is fine but when its God its not.
Yup, Thought-Gnomes, just like a maximal being, cannot be demonstrated to be factual, so there is no reason to believe either exist until we have supporting evidence. Anyone can make up and assert anything.
So why is Cartman claiming that you absolutely disproved God's existence?
You keep making assumptions about our positions. You first thought I said that a supreme being was impossible, now you are assuming he said that I have demonstrated a supreme being to be impossible.
These are two assumptions you cannot support by anything we have said, although I am willing to admit I could be wrong, and welcome you to quote either of us, I will happily admit my mistake if you can do this.
Well we are in the physical dimension but what about the other dimensions? Laws of physics don't apply there so how can you say for them to be true? How do you know the people claiming to know god are even perceiving the 4th dimension? How do you know they aren't perceiving the 5th or 6th or even 10th dimension which is where "God" is claimed to reside? Just because you perceive them in the physical doesn't mean that is where they are at
How can you claim that intelligent design such as laws (law of conservation of mass, laws of motion etc.) are NOT created by anything higher. If the universe really was spontaneous and random there should be no order.
I never said that buddy, you might want to check which argument you are disputing, and besides, there could be an infinite amount of universes and we just happen to be in the one that is perfectly suited for life
If intelligent life exists, and there was a "before" the big bang than whoever created the universe had to have been an intelligent force with the capabilities of bending the third dimension. Making him (or it) at least a 4th dimensional being. Even if the universe contributes to an infinite number of universes there has to be a beginning to each of them to set off the reaction.
No, there does not have to be a beginning, there is cycles, but no beginning, when you put a beginning and end on things, you limit your mind, this is why christians are fearful of eternal torture because some ass hat came along and said god had to have had a beginning, he couldn't have existed forever, it doesn't make logical sense, and making logical sense, is where we failed.
edit woops, my bad, i meant to say the universe did not have a beginning, and it has no end, not god having a beginning
Actually if you believe in entropy it does have an end. And then a re-set. But it had to have a definite beginning because there can be no effect without a cause. and no "action without an equal and opposite reaction". It's physics 101
You can't be serious? That's your reply? You do know about the higgs boson right? M-theory? Quantum physics? We exist on different dimensions, so get with it and give me a better argument
I dont do that hibby jibby bold shit so pardon me for not breaking your argument apart, but you are right, I don't know what other dimensions are like either, probably just full of colors and feelings and things like that, but feeling is everything, emotion and thought are powerful things
Do you ever think what it would be like if language did not exist, how our thoughts and general communication would be like?
That's probably what the other dimensions are like, it probably looks like my profile picture and they probably don't speak english there either
No God theory has yet to provide any proof or even decent evidence that it MIGHT exist, therfore i have no reason to believe one exists. And science seems to have no implications that one exists either. The universe can be explained entirely by natural processes from the beginning to the present and through the future. No god required
There are no atheist theories. Science and logic are the words i think youre looking for. And again, the burden of proof is on YOU theists not us. We are the default position. The DISbelief position. And we dont need proof or evidence of any kind to be here.
At least we have viable evidence and reasoning to know he (or it) exists.
Please, go on. I assure you you dont have any evidence. If you did, faith wouldnt be necessary.
I didn't use any faith whatsoever. I used reasoning and scientific method to deduce his existence. Just like the theory of evolution we cannot see it, but we know that it's there due to overwhelming evidence and reasoning.
Except there is no overwhelming evidence of any kind. God is completely beyond space and time theres no way to even test for him at all. only poor psudo science and speculation mixed with wishfull thinking. Evolution is mount everest compared to the anthill that is theistic creation myth
Quantum physics is pseudo-science? String theory and a multi-verse are all pseudo-science? Maybe you need to go back to college. Or go to college if you haven't hahaha
Youre not using quantum physics youre twisting science to fit your god and even then youve only come up with a scenario in which he COULD exist. Theres that word again. COULD. I already agree that he could exist so what other point are you making?
And can you test evolution? That's a scientific theory that was based off evidence and reasoning. Unless you can explain how the universe has set laws and how it began. Because in a 3D universe everything must have a beginning. And not WHAT made it begin, but HOW it began.
Kind of. We can observe it and observe the various mechanisms that work together within evolution such as mutations and the like. And then of course theres the fossil record and all that. its pretty much fact but science cant declare fact.
And i dont have to give any alternate theory to how the universe began to doubt that your god did it. I dont have to cite one source or anything because the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.
And the reason i doubt your god did it is because everything we have ever tested or observed or discovered on the entire planet and everything about the universe we know, every theory, law, and hypothesis including all the laws of physics are NATURAL. We know exactly how they work and why they work and its always a natural phenomena behind it. Never have we found any evidence of a supernatural force being necessary in any situation and then all of a sudden when we get to the very beginning theres suddenly need for a supernatural god to poof everything into being? I dont think so. Everything has been natural up to that point, why should the beginning of the universe be any different? And its far more likely to assume that it aligns with the nature of the universe instead of being completely opposed to it. A god throws everything out of wack and flipps everything upside down. And it isnt even necessary so until you prove it, im safe to assume it doesnt exist
You created a scenario in which he COULD exist. Theres the key word there. COULD. I never said he couldnt or doesnt exist and i know very well that he could exist. So if thats all you wanna argue then fine you win god could exist. but if you go to god DOES exist, then we have an argument. so which is it?
It's not so much that I don't believe that there is a Supreme creator, but I often find myself not being able to comprehend some aspects of the natural world that have nothing to do with religion, like dinosaurs. I don't think they are ever mentioned in the Bible, yet there is tangible proof that they were once alive. Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that an entire world can be created in only seven days, by that I mean that there was no evolution necessary (the story states that after God created Adam (and his oasis) He told Adam to name all the animals found present in the paradise (pardon me if this is wrong). Yet, science has provided us with undeniable proof that organisms evolved by adapting to their changing environments.
I also don't agree with the favoritism towards men that a plethora of religions have. Wouldn't a Supreme being create them equal if BOTH are needed for the continuity of their species?
You really make no sense. lol. You write all this mis-grammared stuff and then expect us to understand your stupidity. You're an insult to atheists everywhere.
It's not so much that I don't believe that there is a Supreme creator, but I often find myself not being able to comprehend some aspects of the natural world that have nothing to do with religion, like dinosaurs. I don't think they are ever mentioned in the Bible, yet there is tangible proof that they were once alive. Furthermore, I find it difficult to believe that an entire world can be created in only seven days, by that I mean that there was no evolution necessary (the story states that after God created Adam (and his oasis) He told Adam to name all the animals found present in the paradise (pardon me if this is wrong). Yet, science has provided us with undeniable proof that organisms evolved by adapting to their changing environments.
I also don't agree with the favoritism towards men that a plethora of religions have. Wouldn't a Supreme being create them equal if BOTH are needed for the continuity of their species?
The problem with the First Cause argument is the claim of "creation". The idea that something comes from nothing, or the nature of non-existence is incapable of being observed or scientifically studied. Theists misrepresent the concept of creation by suggesting that in the process, something is brought into existence (i.e. a watch is created by a watchmaker) but in reality the watch was merely fashioned from existing material that were already present. There was no actual creation in the manner in which theists imply something came into existence from nothing.
Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God? Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.
If there's a recurring theme in any of these arguments, it's that theists pick and choose which tenets of science they want to embrace (the ones that help prove their claims) and ignore all the rest as if they don't exist. These theories are part of a complex interconnected system. It's intellectually dishonest and unethical to ignore evidence that counters your supernatural claims. The First Cause Argument ignores huge amounts of contradictory evidence, as do many of the arguments herein.
