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.
He also claims that the Universe exists because of gravity. Which is rather funny, since gravity cannot exist without matter. So, what was the source of this gravity, when the universe, and matter, did not exist?
Science has its place. Origins theory is not one of them. Why?
It's simple. Science it the pursuit of knowledge, through observation and experimentation. As far as origins are concerned, there is nothing to observe, or be experimented upon. So, in effect, it's not really science. Is it?
No scientist, nor group of scientists have ever offered a clear and indisputable explanation for the birth/existence of the universe.
However, that is not to say that the explanations offered by the various man made religions are any more credible than such fanciful notions as the big bang theory which asks us to believe that something can, and indeed has, come from nothing.
Like religion, the big bang theory relies on people accepting what they are told with a child like blind faith.
My personal opinion is that no one, including the clever theologians and the brainy scientists, has the remotest idea from where the immense and ever expanding cosmos originated.
My problem with Science is that it is too easily politicized. There are many cases where scientists, and university professors, have suffered professionally for questioning Uncle Darwin. That's not science. It's dogma, backed up by threats.
What you describe doesn't sound like politics, but likely bad science. If you have an idea, you research it, build models, write a paper, submit for peer review and see what happens from there. If your idea is not accepted, that's not the fault of politics, but just that you had a bad idea.
There are documented cases of people being blacklisted, fired...etc, for disagreeing with the establishment. It is highly politicized, and the peer review process is a joke. They simply rubber stamp the theories they agree with, and ignore anything that threatens their beliefs. It's no different than what Galileo went through. Instead of the church, we have a community of scientists who defend their pet theories against all comers. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's actually happening. And it needs to stop.
In the absence of any other irrefutable rationalization it may be worth considering the highly unlikely possibility that the universe has existed forever and, in a somewhat different form will continue to exist for eternity.
The problem with propounding such a thesis is that we all, scientists, theologians, uncle Tom Cobbly and all, find it nigh impossible to perceive the concept of something with has existed forever, something without any beginning nor ending.
I feel if I dwelt too long trying to grasp and reason out that abstraction I would go mad.
I have my own theory about how, someday mankind will be able to discover the truth which will once and for all explain the existence of the universe.
Haven't the time to do so just now but I will soon and present it for your appraisal.
it may be worth considering the highly unlikely possibility that the universe has existed forever
It's not highly unlikely. There is a good possibility this is the case and that the universe is always expanding or contracting and we just happen to live in it during an expansion. No one knows what occurred before the big bang, and it is very possible that the universe had been in a stage of contraction.
It isn't. If the universe was expanding and contracting like a, say, spring, then expansion wouldn't be accelerating.
Any other form would make no sense.
Universes expand and decay, or collapse on themselves rather quickly, depending on whether the way it began, the explosion, had enough energy for it to not collapse back. Ours is of the first kind.
It isn't. If the universe was expanding and contracting like a, say, spring, then expansion wouldn't be accelerating.
Not necessarily true. When you release a spring, it at first accelerates rather quickly to release energy and then slows. Who's to say we still aren't in the first part in which it's still accelerating?
Universes expand and decay, or collapse on themselves rather quickly, depending on whether the way it began, the explosion, had enough energy for it to not collapse back. Ours is of the first kind.
We have a sample of one. There is no way of knowing whether they expand and decay or eventually contract. Since we can only see, or detect about 5% of the universe, it seems a bit premature to make claims about the nature of it. I'm not saying ours definitely is eternal, but I'm also not closed off to the idea either.
Not necessarily true. When you release a spring, it at first accelerates rather quickly to release energy and then slows.
Yes, my bad.
Who's to say we still aren't in the first part in which it's still accelerating?
Because expansion is, well, already going faster than the speed of light, and is still accelerating. That's faster than gravity can cause it to collapse. The universe we can observe now contains the most matter we will ever be able to observe.
Unless dimensions of space-time can behave like springs, it's absurd to think that it will ever implode.
r detect about 5%
14%, but that's not important.
, it seems a bit premature to make claims about the nature of it.
It's much more childish to hope about a divine meaning to it all.
My claims are only as good as the latest science. Though we know enough to not be too confident on it being perfect, it's the best picture we have.
Actually that's as much as we can see. We can potentially detect about 28% of it, according to the best calculations so far for the size and age of the observable universe (I wonder why it's called observable when the part is only 14%).
To be fair, the spring analogy was yours :)
I rather had a pendulum in mind. The error was because the mean position of a spring isn't graceful enough.
If our dimensions roll back enough, only then can it all collapse. That's unlikely, so it has to decay.
I think I can assume you're not accusing me of such a belief, right?
Yes, you can.
I wonder whether things would be better if I were born much earlier. It would certainly be more comfortable without grounds to reject religion on, and though I would hate such ignorance the way I am right now, such thoughts wouldn't exist to worry over. So that can only lead to that I wouldn't travel back in time for it. Do you ever think that way?
Fair enough. Could we not simply be on the downward swing?
Do you ever think that way?
Is ignorance bliss? I don't know. Sure there have been times where I think things would have been better had I continued in my Christian belief, but I also think it could have been better had I not been raised in it to begin with. I prefer not to play the "what if" game. Being free of religion has helped me see the real beauty of humanity, the earth, and the universe. I've always had an inquisitive mind which can be a problem in church. I'm now free to question anything.
That's the error in the question as I changed it to a spring. Basically, I thought one of the extremes to be the mean position and be highest in kinetic energy.
The universe seems to be expanding too fast to collapse back. It's highly unlikely that the 4 dimensions would roll back again so that gravitation can work. The most probable thing to happen is that our universe will decay - all matter has to decay, anyway. Universes always form and die.
But space shouldn't be stretched forever... It's absurd that our laws must always apply around the part where our universe is...
I don't know... I haven't yet read the paper which corrected the Big Bang according to the latest quantum mechanics. I just know that it couldn't have been a singularity, while much of what I learnt about the space-time expansion is from publications before that. I do understand most of the other things, though, except the expansion without the singularity.
Being free of religion has helped me see the real beauty of humanity, the earth, and the universe. I've always had an inquisitive mind which can be a problem in church. I'm now free to question anything.
As much as I want the popular religion to be true, I can't deny that it is anything more than hopelessly wrong. But that isn't me most of the time. I'd prefer to be sent to hell than be with the Abrahamic God. Any God who isn't perfectly rational doesn't deserve my worship. Especially one who isn't even real.
Hoping to be wrong is the epitome of gullibility. At least hoping too much, anyway.
Perhaps it is related to that the last supernatural entity I believed in, completely by myself (without any indoctrination), was a semi deistic all powerful deity "Chaos". Because that's pretty much the decisive force of the universe. Or perhaps it's because I was initially a Hindu - the religion that has little deities assigned for about everything. Could have been one of the best preachers.
But yes, a what if scenario doesn't matter, because we wouldn't be ourselves if they were true. That question mainly has just one utility - should organised religion be allowed to take breaths any longer? Should it be destroyed at any cost? Is it even important? (As to how it follows from that, there's the above theory, and some more which Nietzsche got published earlier than me in "Will to Power")
What you're suggesting is no more than an outlandish theory and to claim that your ''very imaginative'' ( ''euphemism for bloody stupid'') hypothesis which you're peddling is anything other than that diminishes your own credibility and further invalidates your quirky supposition.
It truly is a shame that filth such as you can come onto a debating forum and through narrow minded intransigence stifle free flowing open debate.
As no one, and that includes you, has the answer to the origin of the universe in their back pocket so, in that context an open mind should be kept on all possibilities.
It truly is a shame that filth such as you can come onto a debating forum and through narrow minded intransigence stifle free flowing open debate.
Did I say this is absolutely the answer? No, I didn't.
As no one, and that includes you, has the answer to the origin of the universe in their back pocket so, in that context an open mind should be kept on all possibilities.
You're right, we don't absolutely know and can only go off what evidence there is. Since I'm an atheist, I do have an open mind. Could our universe simply be eternal? Is the idea of a multiverse correct? Who knows? It's the unknown that keeps science moving.
No one knows how the universe came into being. No one witnessed the event. All we can do is speculate. The math they used to figure out the big bang breaks down when they try to take it back to the actual event. I repeat. No one knows. It's nothing but a matter of faith...for BOTH sides.
Except we do know since we can observe the background radiation from the event and have been able to build models supporting this that have gone through peer review. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does.
Except we can see it through the background radiation and have built many models to support this. Just because you can't seem to understand it doesn't mean no one else can.
Seriously? You're using the "You're too stupid to understand" argument? How lame is that? I'll have you know that not all scientists agree on anything. Many of them disagree with the big bang and evolution. I suppose you're one of those idiots who think that 97 percent of scientists agree with man made global warming. Here's a news flash for you. That's a bunch of BS.
Seriously? You're using the "You're too stupid to understand" argument?
If the shoe fits. As many scientists do believe this to be true and have the evidence to back it up, yet you don't understand it, what else can be said?
Many of them disagree with the big bang and evolution.
Let me guess, these same scientists are the ones losing their positions?
I suppose you're one of those idiots who think that 97 percent of scientists agree with man made global warming. Here's a news flash for you. That's a bunch of BS.
Well, aren't you just special. Keep denying God. You're in for a rude awakening. You see, it doesn't matter what anyone believes. God will have His way. Nothing you can do about it but submit. You're playing with fire, and you don't even know it. Only a fool says there is no God.
Another red herring. Let me guess, you believe god created the universe? No one was there to witness that either (but we do have evidence to show it being older than 6000 years old). I go where the evidence leads and no one can provide evidence for a god.
Not true. Radiocarbon dating is unreliable. There have been many scientific papers about it's unreliability. Did you know how they really date fossils? When they find one, it is found in a particular geologic column. They say that they know how old the fossil is by where it was found. So, how do they know how the strata is? Well, because they found a fossil of known age there. Circular reasoning, in the extreme. In fact, there is no reliable way to date fossils beyond several thousand years.
Radiocarbon dating is actually quite accurate when used correctly. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, it can only be used on samples less than 50,000 years old. Fortunately there are other forms of radiometric dating as well as other dating method, which are reliable for measuring up to millions and even billions of years. Since dinosaur bones are found in sedimentary rock, where radioactive isotopes are not found, they instead measure those found neighboring rock layers and from there can accurately determine the age of the fossils. Nothing in this is circular.
Radio carbon dating relies on assumptions. Such as whether or not decay rates are stable. There is evidence that environmental factors alter this. Then you have to figure that the amount of Carbon 14 in the environment has remained stable. There is convincing evidence that it has not. Assuming the earth was created 6,000 or so years ago, it would have had very little C14 in the environment. This would give false readings based on the amount of C14 that was missing from the environment.
Assuming the earth was created 6,000 or so years ago
Sure if you start off with a false assumption, any conclusion can be made. If I assume an ice cube is a rock, I can conclude rocks melt when exposed to heat above 0°C. We don't even need radiocarbon dating to prove the earth is older than 6000 years old.
I can't even take you seriously. But I guess you can't help yourself. I bet you went to a public school. Didn't you? Poor slob. They brainwashed you pretty good.
The feeling is mutual. When we use multiple methods of dating, and they all agree with each other, it's only reasonable to conclude they are indeed accurate. To deny it simply because an old book says otherwise is foolish.
I bet you went to a public school.
Ad hominem. At my age, my formal education is hardly relevant anymore. Besides, I was a Christian for over 30 years which included all of my schooling, including college.
Dating methods do NOT agree. In fact, different dating methods often disagree when used on the same samples. The simple fact is that they are not nearly as accurate as you claim.
You were a Christian? I doubt that. A Christian would believe the Biblical account of Creation. Since you don't, you were never a Christian. You may have called yourself one, but you never were one.
Dating methods do NOT agree. In fact, different dating methods often disagree when used on the same samples.
Do you actually have any examples of this on a regular basis? I bet you don't. Like most creationists you probably found one instance of this happening and therefore must conclude it is never accurate. You've already shown yourself to be uneducated in this when you started arguing about radiocarbon dating and fossils (the typical creationist dribble).
A Christian would believe the Biblical account of Creation. Since you don't, you were never a Christian. You may have called yourself one, but you never were one.
Blah blah blah...do you have anything original to say? We've all heard this before. Let's take a look at the grammatical structure of this:
"You were a Christian?" Yes, I was a Christian, therefore what I believed is in the past tense, so I no longer believe in it. Even as a Christian I didn't believe in a young earth, nor do the majority of Christians. The Bible doesn't speak to the actual age so to assume it to be only 6,000 years old is making it say something it isn't.
Lastly, whether you believe I was a Christian or not is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think. If you can't believe a Christian can turn into an atheist, it just goes to show how naive and uneducated you are.
If you believe that a Christian can become an atheist, then you have no conception of what a Christian is. There is no such thing as a former Christian. Becoming a Christian involves a fundamental change in a person that transcends the physical. It is a transformation that makes one a child of God. You may have called yourself a Christian, but you can call yourself anything you like. You're still you. And you were never a Christian.
Becoming a Christian involves a fundamental change in a person that transcends the physical. It is a transformation that makes one a child of God.
Except when you don't believe in god, such a transformation cannot happen and is nothing more than a delusion. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
One day, you will learn the truth. Hopefully, it won't be too late. And how do you know that God is a delusion? Can you prove it? The answer is no. You can't. Jesus claimed to be God, in the flesh. There is plenty of historical evidence to support this. In fact, How can you explain Christianity without a Christ? The 12 Apostles claimed to have seen a risen Christ. They stuck to this claim in spite of being imprisoned, tortured and even killed. Do you know anyone who would suffer such torment for a lie? I don't.
And how do you know that God is a delusion? Can you prove it? The answer is no.
You're right, I can't, and that's why I don't make the claim there is no god, I simply do not believe because of a lack of evidence.
You mention a lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence. You simply refuse to believe, but it's not for a lack of evidence.
Jesus claimed to be God, in the flesh. There is plenty of historical evidence to support this.
There may be evidence to support a man from that time called Jesus, and even of his claims, but there is no evidence to support the claims being true.
Over 500 people witnessed seeing him after His Resurrection.
How can you explain Christianity without a Christ?
How do you explain Islam without Mohammed? How do you explain Scientology without Xenu?
No one is claiming that Mohammed was a fictional character. He was, however, a pedophile and a murderer.
They stuck to this claim in spite of being imprisoned, tortured and even killed.
Willingness to suffer for something has no bearing on whether something is true. People from all religions have suffered for their beliefs.
Do you know anyone who would suffer such torment for a lie? I don't.
They certainly would if they believed the lie. Remember Heaven's Gate? What about the martyrs of Islam?
It is one thing to die for something you believe in. It is quite different when one dies for something they have witnessed themselves. Jesus rose from the dead. That is the message they died for. They died for something they knew to be true. If they did not believe that it was true, they would have renounced Christ in order to save themselves.
PROVING ?? .... omG !! PROVING ??? .... lol only to the degree we have a common environment ... Apes are not created in the image of God .... sorry :) God created each species after its own kind .... try having sex w/ an ape (not that you haven't already tried) and producing offspring .... ain't gonna happen ... sorry :(
Like the cult of darwinism which claims that 80,000 pound whales evolved from "hooved hyenas". Bwaaaahahahaha! You are a cult. Admit you are. Nobody believes that crap.
