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.
Yes actually. Virtual particles constantly pop in and out of existence at the sub-atomic level. The effect from this has actually been measured experimentally, but putting two metal plates very close to each other and measuring the force.
This is actually why what we consider "space" actually is not empty.
Saying it was just magicked into existence by a hypothetical superbeing is not an explanation. Explanation have explanatory value. They impart knowledge you did not possess before the explanation was provided.
"God did it" imparts no knowledge. It is simply the utterance of a totally unsupported claim. It is as much an explanation as if I said "Jabberwocky did it".
Ummm... ok. How is that statement in any way useful? What did it actually accomplish between taking an unknown (the origin of energy, assuming there even IS such an origin and energy didn't simply always exist) and slapping a name on it ("Jabberwocky"... or if you prefer, "God")?
Oh forget it, I should have known better than to engage you in discussion after the torture fiasco. If you didn't get the point of an illustration that obvious you're either impossible to converse with or deliberately trolling.
I agree with that statement. I was disputing that the person above stated that because nothing cannot turn into something, there must have been a creator. However, this neglects two concepts: one is that matter always existed, and the other is that its creation is beyond our understanding.
The individual above my disputed post stated an absolutism statement. Just because a creator is a viable alternative does not mean it is the only alternative.
The creator is eternal, therefore is outside of human science understanding.
In short, "scientifically" it's not possible for nothing to turn into something.
If it isn't possible for "nothing to turn into something" then a creator is superfluous because the universe always existed uncreated, because the act of creation implies creating something from nothing, which is acknowledged as impossible.
The creator is eternal, therefore is outside of human science understanding.
In short, "scientifically" it's not possible for nothing to turn into something.
Creating something from nothing is impossible for you and me, for science. God is not science.
You just lost the "debate" by defining your object of debate as being incoherent and unknowable. You can't "win" a debate by simply moving your topic out of the realm of understanding, the point of debate is to make subjects coherent and capable of being broken down.
Why don't you look at the title of this debate and tell me whether I've lost the debate or not... you're so blind you don't realize my answer to the title question is NO.
Why don't you look at the title of this debate and tell me whether I've lost the debate or not... you're so blind you don't realize my answer to the title question is NO.
Which side are you on?
Have you got a point to make regarding the topic?
Are you even debating?
It doesn't matter if someone is "backing" my position. When they use a poor argument I am obligated to correct them.
Yes, I'd appreciate any correction, but you're just making a mess of it, really, so can i respectfully decline any future attempts from you to correct me?
Scientifically it's impossible for nothing to turn into something. Yet we're all here. God must have created us. If you can't understand that, then you're denying God's existence out of stubbornness. Your punishment is that you'll remain blind and stupid for the rest of your life even though you've got eyes and a brain in perfect working order... :)
Scientifically it's impossible for nothing to turn into something. Yet we're all here. God must have created us. If you can't understand that, then you're denying God's existence out of stubbornness. Your punishment is that you'll remain blind and stupid for the rest of your life even though you've got eyes and a brain in perfect working order... :)
If it's impossible for nothing to turn into something, then it follows that we were not created. That is called logic.
It is how the universe works. Everything has to had come from something. All matter and energy came from the big bang and the big bang came from an anomaly in the -multi-verse which exists mostly in the 4th dimension where every possible circumstance is happening at the same time...
This is crazy. Even in an infinite universe the chances of the planet being perfectly tuned to support life is unthinkably unlikely without an outside influence. What is the likelihood that this is really the only planet able to support life 'continuously for millions of years', the first sign of life just appeared out of no where 'with ability to reproduce asexually', and none of that has been destroyed in hundreds of millions of years. This world as we know it would take an infinity in itself to form without help.
I guess the chances are pretty slim.. but it happened
Plus the Earth did have billions of years to form... that's a lot of time for evolution. Keep in mind a lot of single cell organisms reproduce 15 minutes that is a lot of chances for something to happen right.
Can you tell me how you know that the earth is billions of years old? All dating processes depend on a relative system based on assumptions utilizing circular reasoning(i.e., the rock layer surrounding this fossil is assumed to be 500 million yrs old, because the strata below it is assumed to be 600 million yrs old). Carbon-14 dating is based on the assumption that radioactive isotopes always degrade at exactly the same rate and always have. Please look up the research being done by the organization RATE.
This is crazy. Even in an infinite universe the chances of the planet being perfectly tuned to support life is unthinkably unlikely without an outside influence. What is the likelihood that this is really the only planet able to support life 'continuously for millions of years', the first sign of life just appeared out of no where 'with ability to reproduce asexually', and none of that has been destroyed in hundreds of millions of years. This world as we know it would take an infinity in itself to form without help.
In an infinite universe everything that is possible has a probability of 100%, by definition. However you miss the point of how planets, and life develops, which are both deterministic processes.
I find it interesting that those that argue for evolution (that something came from nothing, or better stated that information came from nothing), claim that hybridization of animals and plants proves it. Ironic, since humans (source of information) actually are the impetus for that hybridization. A creative, intelligent being began and controlled the process.
I find it interesting that those that argue for evolution (that something came from nothing, or better stated that information came from nothing), claim that hybridization of animals and plants proves it. Ironic, since humans (source of information) actually are the impetus for that hybridization. A creative, intelligent being began and controlled the process.
It's simple really. Artificial selection and natural selection differ only in the one providing pressure. They work the same and provide equally effective sculpting of species.
Creationists argue that something came from nothing, via magic words
But God is something he is a someone. He is real and so he created something from his own word.
Something cannot come from nothing:
The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that neither one appears without the other. Thus in closed systems, both mass and energy are conserved separately, just as was understood in pre-relativistic physics. The new feature of relativistic physics is that "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) could be converted to non-matter forms of energy, such as light; or kinetic and potential energy (example: heat). However, this conversion does not affect the total mass of systems, since the latter forms of non-matter energy still retain their mass through any such conversion.
God can create and destroy matter and energy so i am right.
It is impossible for matter to be created or destroyed, something cannot come from nothing, therefore if a god exists, it cannot create or destroy matter. Logic prevails.