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.
Science is for facts and alot of facts goes against God but I am still with science because we can show prove of are facts but God only has a book to read.
I agree, But I would like people to stop making laws against things that God isn't ok with because we or at least me isn't making laws against you guys.
I know science to be a fact and it's a means of knowing for sure if there is a creator someday, never the less no matter how you look at it somehow or something created the elements for existence to even exist, call it want you want, God, the unknown but in the end existence for even science to even exist was created, our very own being and all that is had a creation of some sort, there is no other way to look at it.
So Science or God? I say both, Science IMO is a means to understanding God, and God meaning existence in my frame of reference. (not God the nut job sociopath that the bible thumpers follow, or any other religion for that matter)
Note: I am a Atheist when it comes to all religion, but I am agnostic when it comes to a creator of all existence, I truly don't know, but that being said we all had a creation so call it what you want, I will call it God to simplify things, to me God is the thing that created all existence, the multi verse, all science, all elements for things to even have the chain reaction for a big bang to even happen in the first place, and before the big bang itself.
That is what I am searching for, science to find God, and any true scientist understands that and will not close there mind to block out that theory of our creation no matter what they call it.
I know for a FACT that we exist, and I know for a FACT that all thing were created, but by what?
So, that's the best you got? Multiple scientists who have claimed to have converted during their scientific careers are lying? Well, you don't have to believe them, that's fine.
God people on the other side think science is everything for no reason but doesn't even do research but gets crap from a theory. Shame on all of you hahahahaahahahahahah!!!!!!!!! God is real I tell you
At least we accualy have a logicall explanation not like you atheist freaks how could you believe a bunch of nothing all of a sudden happen all of a sudden are you serious
We both have a problem. Your remedy is to make God "supernatural" and have Him always exist. You believe in a being that doesn't have to follow any rules and "came from nothing". Plus, something coming from nothing is a gross exaggeration. You can still believe in God and accept science. They aren't opposed to each other.
Certain things need to exist for the race to even occur. Something had to exist to allow the universe to come into existence. What caused the Big Bang?
It breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Either something was there eternally, that would represent the cyclic model but that isn't as valid as it once was, or something that's beyond physicality. It must be conscious and metaphysical. That is the only way it can create the universe.
How are they broken? Primarily the second law. Something composed of this universe can't have created the universe since matter cannot be created or destroyed. The object, or creator, must not be composed of anything within the universe.
"It" is the object or creator. It can't be fully defined since our logic doesn't reach those bounds. I'm not arguing about the existence of "it", but the theoretical approach that a creator is a rational cause for the universe. I was only arguing against one of your points.
I see. I'm having trouble clarifying my argument. I'm calling the quits here. I don't think I can make a completely rational argument from unknown knowledge.
That is a poor example since we all know that no fire was "created", but the matter that became the fire was transformed. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Begging the question also seems to far of a stretch. If the being is eternal then what can create it? If the being always was, in the same sense that the universe could have always been there, then begging the question is the wrong attributation.
That is a poor example since we all know that no fire was "created", but the matter that became the fire was transformed.
There is now fire where there was none. That is creation.
But if you insist on defining creation as something where there was nothing, we don't have any examples of that. Not even the Big Bang since that didn't create the energy, but allowed for an example of already existing energy, energy which itself composes everything in the universe. So without an example, what is your reasoning that the creative force requires intelligence.
Begging the question also seems to far of a stretch. If the being is eternal then what can create it?
When did we switch subjects?
You stated that Creation requires intelligence therefore If the object is not conscious it cannot create. However, intelligence is not definitively a part of the act of creation.
There is now fire where there was none. That is creation.
That isn't what happened scientifically. Matter was transformed. This is common knowledge. We can say fire was created as a colloquial euphemism.
But if you insist on defining creation as something where there was nothing, we don't have any examples of that.Â
I have yet to define creation. I'm not sure where you aquired such an assumption.
So without an example, what is your reasoning that the creative force requires intelligence.
Simple. If we are discussing a creator then it is required to be intelligent in order to create anything. Otherwise the material that was pre-existing or currently exists was never created but took on different forms. That is backed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If we can't find evidence that the universe is eternal then we must be aware that whatever created it cannot be composed of what's currently in the universe. That follows that intelligence is required to create since the unconscious cannot create.
WHYÂ must a creative force be intelligent?
Asking "why" is nonsense. Do you ask why gravity exists? No. A unconscious force can't create anything, but transform matter. Are you able to name something created from a non intelligence? You cannot. We can name things that intelligent being can create.
I have yet to define creation. I'm not sure where you aquired such an assumption.
If something that changed form cannot count as creation, then the only alternative is something from nothing, since everything we have observed is in some way or the other an altered form of something else. Except energy, which we believe to be uncreated.
Otherwise the material that was pre-existing or currently exists was never created but took on different forms.
So, energy. Also, this says nothing about intelligence. You are adding that aspect yourself.
If we can't find evidence that the universe is eternal then we must be aware that whatever created it cannot be composed of what's currently in the universe.
But the fundamental building block, energy is eternal as best as we can tell.
That follows that intelligence is required to create since the unconscious cannot create.
Stop weaseling around it. You keep asserting that unconsciousness cannot create. WHY cannot a non-conscious item or action create? What is the mechanism stopping it?
Asking "why" is nonsense.
Only if you are afraid of the answer or don't know how to come up with one.
Do you ask why gravity exists?
Physicists do. "Why" is always a valid question.
Besides, these are two different types of question.
Why gravity exists is reliant on a demonstrable force: gravity.
You are adding a category that is not proven part of it. So you need to justify yourself.
Are you able to name something created from a non intelligence?
Yes. The very first intelligent thing. It only had to happen once (although it is more likely that it happened numerous times).
By the by, you should really look at your own arguments. You change the subject. You make nonequivalent comparisons. You constantly use backwards logic and circular reasoning. Not exactly sure why you think you have the right to be arrogant, but Christ be with you.
You just eliminated the word create from the dictionary. Nothing is created, it is just transformed into another form. You have no idea what it takes to create something.
I don't think you understand what is truly created and what is truly transformed. Scientifically nothing has been created. The only thing that we can scientifically create is an abstract idea. You are poorly understanding my argument. I wouldn't blame that on another debator. That is your own fault.
I mean that you have demonstrated that creation is an abstract idea. How can you claim to know that creation must be done by a conscious entity when you can't possibly comprehend what creation is?
I understand. That is one of my tactics of debating wise one. I'm surprised you caught on. Most other will pass by an automatically qualify my argument. I must give you credit. To answer your question in a philisophical sense we can understand creation, but that depends on the circumstances given beforehand. Obviously if a four year old says she created a picture of "mommy" I will agree. If someone says they have created fire I will say you have truly transformed matter. If someone says they have come up with a new idea I will say they created it. I'm not sure this demonstrates my point precisely.
According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe began as a singularity, so either the universe always existed or the universe came from nothing. My previous statement was to point out that something had to exist to allow the universe to grow from it's small singularity.
There may not have to be. However, we don't tend to see things grow on their own. There is usually a combination that allows things to grow or change. The universe would certainly be something, though. So, you think that there has always been something, right?
My problem is that he claims that Atheists argue something came from nothing. If he is going to believe that I want to point out how his story is very similar.
Well, the problem right now is that nobody knows where the singularity came from. There are multiple theories, and I guess a few atheists do claim that something came from nothing. The singularity may have always existed, and one theory even suggests that the universe is cyclical, in that it has expanded and contracted several times.
It is usually a reference to the start of the universe. All of the raw materials for the entire universe "came from nothing." That stuff appeared in an "instant."
I know what they are implying. However this implication is not in line with the general understanding. There wasn't "nothing" before the big bang, there was the singularity and all of the energy in the universe. So, most folks who support Big Bang, do not make the claim that everything came from nothing.
Science is a search for causes but it's limited to what it can do. Here is a list on what it can't do. Take from "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler
1. mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them)
2. metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own.)
3. ethical judgements (you can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method)
4. aesthetic judgements (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and ironically
5. Science itself (the belief the scientific method discovers truth cannot be proven by the scientific method itself).
God however can answer the ethical questions on what is morally right and wrong because He established that.