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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
does god exist?
did god create our universe???? my answer is no... its all about science and astronomy!!anyone who says yes he does.. then prove it to me,scientifically.. because everything is related to science!!! and this thing too should be!!
Are you being Sarcastic? Because it never raises new points. In fact, I believe it was url 20 that I said on the debate, what I said to you, about it literally never having new points.
see.. i truly respect your sayings but as i am new o this site ii just wanted a topic which is famous!!! i hope next time i will choose a different and amazing topic! and thanks to be a science believer!
I searched (by literally just replacing the number 21 with the next lowest) an found the last one I participated on which was 16 I guess I said it on another God debate.
I don't believe in God. I am not denying the possibility of his existence, but I don't believe.
When people are arguing, or in their own silly words ''proving'' God, they are all using arguments that could fit all religions. I had a debate with someone here the other day, saying that the Law of casuality tells us, that in order for time, space and matter to exist, it must have a creator that is outside time, space and matter.
That might well be, but .. who's to say it's the biblical God who created it all? That argument could as easily be said by a muslim, proving Allah, or whatever religion you can name.
Us, atheists can provide reasonable explanations for why we believe exactly what we believe. You, on the other hand, can only provide a reasonable explanation for why you are a theist, and not why you are a muslim, chrisitan, jew .. you name it.
There is no way of knowing for sure, but I've said this before, and I'm gonna say it again; Just because a story is really really old, doesn't make it trustworthy, if anything, it makes it less trustworthy.
The argument is flawed in that God created Humans in there present form, and they are the same as they are today. But as we have catalogued (through fossil evidence) the earth as being older than the Bible states, it would be impossible for the humans to not evolve. How do we know evolution exists? Through Gregor Mendel's experiments on peas (genetics). He found that different traits were apparent in different child peas, and considered, if the traits changed, or evolved from offspring to offspring, that they must have begun somewhere as something else over the million years Earth has existed. So if evolution is true, and the fact that the earth is older than the bible states, there is no time period that God could have created us in, and not have experienced the effects of Evolution, meaning, its impossible for him to exist.
http://www.jashow.org/televisionshow/complexity-gods-creation/ The Bible affirms that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth .. As scientists discover the details regarding the universe’s creation .. they are finding an enormous level of complexity .. This complexity is so far beyond what had been previously expected or known that the information increasingly points to a supernatural Creator of all things rather than a universe evolving over time through chance or random processes
Believing blindly, is believing in anything in which you have not personally observed. There are many things that you already believe blindly in. Are you stupid as well?
first of all i am a science believer and doesn't believe in all other stupid things soo it's not me!!!!and have you ever experienced the feeling of god and what alll other things!!!!??
I will always back science simply for the fact that they have done so much research, there is so much data and evidence that highly suggests that theory's such as the Big Bang did happen! However other than a 2000 year old book and word of mouth there is nothing to prove that God exists. For myself personally God will only be real on the day of Armageddon.
Science is full of theories and God can be classified as a theory as well. Since science itself doesn't require absolute proof that a theory is right, God is as good of a theory as science mandates.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Where is the repeated process in Big Bang? Who has observed Big Bang? Big Bang has never followed the rules you demand of God, so it must also not be a valid theory according to science.
The range of observed phenomena that The Big Bang theory is said to explain is commonly misunderstood. The passage below outlines what is covered under The Big Bang theory. I would be happy to explain anything further if this isn't sufficient to demonstrate why The Big Bang constitutes a theory.
The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law. As the distance between galaxies increases today, in the past galaxies were closer together. The known laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures.
While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical theory and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.
In the first second after the universe began, the surrounding temperature was about 10 billion degrees Fahrenheit (5.5 billion Celsius), according to NASA. The cosmos contained a vast array of fundamental particles such as neutrons, electrons and protons. These decayed or combined as the universe got cooler.
This early soup would have been impossible to look at, because light could not carry inside of it. "The free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds," NASA stated. Over time, however, the free electrons met up with nuclei and created neutral atoms. This allowed light to shine through about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
This early light — sometimes called the "afterglow" of the Big Bang — is more properly known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). It was first predicted by Ralph Alpher and other scientists in 1948, but was found only by accident almost 20 years later. [Images: Peering Back to the Big Bang & Early Universe]
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, both of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, were building a radio receiver in 1965 and picking up higher-than-expected temperatures, according to NASA. At first, they thought the anomaly was due to pigeons and their dung, but even after cleaning up the mess and killing pigeons that tried to roost inside the antenna, the anomaly persisted.
Simultaneously, a Princeton University team (led by Robert Dicke) was trying to find evidence of the CMB, and realized that Penzias and Wilson had stumbled upon it. The teams each published papers in the Astrophysical Journal in 1965.
you have proven the correct thing and yes there's a theory then a law to prove it and at last its proven and with a proof to prove some people who are opposing to it! and hence they become more aggressive because science had prove the thing.. what is wrong and what is correct!but it happens that if some people want to believe the scientific thing they can't because of their ego before going on to hte opposition side!and that they have to face taunting of the whole world.
You misunderstand what the term 'theory' means in science.
The definition that most people seem to associated with 'theory' is more in-line with the actual definition of 'hypothesis.'
A hypothesis ultimately boils down to an educated guess based on observations that, for example, suggest a link between two different things. Experiments are designed to attempt to confirm and refute hypotheses, by assuming the hypothesis to be true when predicting the results of an experiment.
A theory, on the other hand, does not represent an educated guess- rather, it represents something just a hair below acceptance as fact. A theory is a hypothesis that has been upheld by all relevant experimentation to date, including in the eyes of those who are reviewing the experiments parameters for legitimacy. In other words, using it as a basic premise results in accurate predictions.
God could be called a hypothesis at best. If you want to call God a theory, you've got a big of work ahead of you.
1) Determine what predictions could be made under what circumstances, when Gods existence is taken as a basic premise.
2) Design experiments to test these predictions and circumstances.
3) Verify the results of the experiment match up with what was predicted.
4) Draw your conclusion from the experimental data
5) Allow other scientists to review your basic premises, experimental paramaters, end data, and conclusion.
6) Repeat steps 2-5 many times.
If you're able to make accurate, verifiable predictions using God as a basic premise, you can call God a theory. Until then, it's a hypothesis at best.
You did not do your homework, and you receive a 0 for the day.
The 'Big Bang' isn't the experiment. The Big Bang is the theory. The premise for experimentation is.
If we assume the Big Bang to be true, we would expect to be able to make certain predictions based off of that- such as the rate of expansion of the universe, the relative speed and vector of various objects, etc. Enough of these predictions have been observed to be true that we can call it a theory.
It might be fair to assert that we have been somewhat limited in our ability to make experiments regarding the big bang- but that doesn't change the fact that it's the best working model we currently have, and is consistent with what we can observe of the universe around us. If advances in technology reveal different data, the theory will be modified, or scrapped entirely- this is a key difference, and is another reason why 'God' will not pass muster as a theory.
Independent review by numerous individuals of numerous data points have been made. All support the predictions made when the big bang is assumed. Those ARE repeated results.
If you discount those, in so doing you suggest that we would need to observe multiple big bangs directly in order to verify it and call it a theory. This is not the case. It is not the scientific view of God that is flawed here- it is your understanding of the scientific method that is flawed.
If you wish to contest the Big Bang, read up on it, grab yourself a telescope, and try to find something that flies in the face of it. But make sure you do your homework, and lots of it. People have been trying to refute it for as long as it's been a theory, so whatever you find has probably been tried and proven fallacious.
Since science itself doesn't require absolute proof that a theory is right
That is false. Science does require that. In science you need to prove the ideas that go into the theory. If you don't it is not considered a theory in science.
I don't think that this is necessarily accurate; I do tend to agree that science itself doesn't require absolute proof. After all, we don't have absolute proof of a number of theories.
Rather, I believe it has more to do with the ability to make accurate predictions using the theory/hypothesis as a premise; hypotheses are yet untested, theories have passed numerous 'tests' and failed none that were not themselves fundamentally flawed.
Proof means evidence enough to establish something as true. The parts of a scientific theory have those things. A scientific theory is an established understanding of a topic. Those are by definition. If you haven't noticed, his arguments aren't based on logic. He bases everything on twisting words. I created an argument that shows how him begging the question won't work.
Rather, I believe it has more to do with the ability to make accurate predictions using the theory/hypothesis as a premise; hypotheses are yet untested, theories have passed numerous 'tests' and failed none that were not themselves fundamentally flawed.
I think this has more to do with what is taught. There are lots of things that are well understood, but don't warrant being labeled as theories. This would be how we determine what is important.
That is false. Science does require that. In science you need to prove the ideas that go into the theory. If you don't it is not considered a theory in science.
Big Bang briefly defined and questioned. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
You argue that scientific theories don't need proof, and I tell you your wrong, and your response is that you don't understand the Big Bang Theory. Who ignored the argument here? Why should I go off on your tangent when you ignored my argument?
You argue that scientific theories don't need proof, and I tell you your wrong, and your response is that you don't understand the Big Bang Theory. Who ignored the argument here? Why should I go off on your tangent when you ignored my argument?
My point is that Big Bang Theory is explained by things in which science does not understand, singularities, black holes, etc. One cannot or should not be able to explain something with things that are not know and simple throw out other unknowns (God) simple because they choose to believe one and not the other.
One cannot or should not be able to explain something with things that are not know and simple throw out other unknowns (God) simple because they choose to believe one and not the other.
It has nothing to do with believing one over the other. There is a huge difference between having unknown parts and having your whole theory unknown. The Big Bang Theory doesn't even have unknown parts, but unknown mechanisms. There had to be a singularity event for everything else we observe. How the singularity works is unknown. What parts of God can you demonstrate without knowing the mechanism behind it?
It has nothing to do with believing one over the other. There is a huge difference between having unknown parts and having your whole theory unknown. The Big Bang Theory doesn't even have unknown parts, but unknown mechanisms. There had to be a singularity event for everything else we observe. How the singularity works is unknown. What parts of God can you demonstrate without knowing the mechanism behind it?
So you would be perfectly fine given an explanation of electricity start at the light switch? Knowing how the generator works is not important?
Your analogy isn't consistent. If I am in a closed room. And I want to demonstrate that electricity exists, all I have is the switch. In your example the generator doesn't exist if you want it to fit the Big Bang Theory. So, yes that is fine.
Your analogy isn't consistent. If I am in a closed room. And I want to demonstrate that electricity exists, all I have is the switch. In your example the generator doesn't exist if you want it to fit the Big Bang Theory. So, yes that is fine.
At least I'm starting to understand why you are limited only to the ideas of others, you're in a closed room. Leave it once in a while and you may see power lines running to the generator.
i know the whole big bang theory.. and recently it was announced by scientists that the whole universe is made up by a small particles fusion.. 'HIGGS BOSON' google it and you will find it.. i am saying this is 21st century and we are living in a scientific world! soo behind everything science is the thing's backbone which can't be bent or destroyed!!
Why are you disputing me? Don't tell me to look anything when I am on your side because it makes it look like you are challenging me and I am not against you. I don't understand how your post helps me figure anything out.
Except that's not the case here- you more or less completely ignored his point, went off on a tangent about singularities, and then posed him questions regarding singularities.
You did not address his argument in the slightest; how can you expect him to address yours when you refuse?
My point is that Big Bang Theory is explained by things in which science does not understand, singularities, black holes, etc. One cannot or should not be able to explain something with things that are not know and simple throw out other unknowns (God) simple because they choose to believe one and not the other.
You're right in that 'singularities,' 'black holes' and such are not fully understood.
You're wrong in suggesting that they are not understood at all. These are names we are assigning to observable, measurable phenomena. God is not discarded due to being 'unknown-' God is discarded because no meaningful, measurable predictions can be made and verified using God as a premise. It's not a question of belief- we can measure the effect of what we call 'black holes-' even if the nature of what they are is not fully understood.
We can't measure 'God.'
Your point is fundamentally flawed due to your own ignorance. You are discarding what is measurable, even if not fully understood, for something that is neither measurable or understood -at all-.
When the scientific method is performed correctly, there is no room for belief. There are things that 'fit' with what we already know, and things that do not. When we learn more, some of what appeared to fit no longer does; on more rare occasion, that which was thought not to fit is later found to. It's not about what a scientist 'believes-' it's about what a scientist can measure. How would you propose we measure the influence of God, and what predictions could be made based off of that? If you really want God to be a theory, you need to do the legwork to establish it as one. Otherwise, as initially stated, it will remain a hypothesis, and not a particularly well thought out one at that.
Thanks man. He does this to me all the time. I wish I had a dollar for every time I got a response "As usual, you ..." followed by something he is guilty of.
Deliberate reality is proof God exist. If I walk down a street and find a dime on the ground , I think nothing of it. If I walk further and find 3 dimes on the ground, I can now suspect things. If I go further and find 100 dimes on the ground, yet each perfectly balanced and standing on their edges, I can now KNOW that this was deliberately done. It was no happenstance accident.
The dimes were well ordered by someone who did this intentionally. It was a purposeful designed event.
This is how we can prove God exist. Look at the Universe, ( The Dimes), how it was deliberately done. Intent is there. Design is there. This is an Anthropic way to prove God exist.
Are you using a fake account? Are you Mickiel? Why did you create a fake account? We already know you are a troll.
Please state how I proved God doesn't exist. You saying so, doesn't make it so.
I didn't actually say it either. I asked a question. He (you?) said that if A is true, God exists. I am wondering what it means when A is false because his statement is false.
Are you using a fake account? Are you Mickiel? Why did you create a fake account? We already know you are a troll.
I only have the one account. As for you the same cannot be said. The mass of up-votes instantly following your insults and accusations prove that you are the one with multiple accounts. Cartman, Stryker, thousandin1, all log in when you do. A series of coincidences, or alias of yours. The latter seems more logical.
Cartman, Stryker, thousandin1, all log in when you do. A series of coincidences, or alias of yours. The latter seems more logical.
Lol... lol... xD... I just started using this site again about a week ago, and when I'm active here I'm usually online every few hours, if only to check on things. I usually see Cartman on most of the time, and thousandin1 less. I see you on far less, so it would make sense that you see us log in because we frequently do. I have no outside connection to either of them and we rarely if ever chat over messages... lol...
Stryer, I just thew this out there proving it is as ridiculous as Cartman claiming I have multiple accounts. Sometimes it is easier to argue with a fool being a fool.
I will give you an example of actual logic. The account with the name "Thewayitis" responds to me saying I accused him of posting something he doesn't believe he posted. The account "Thewayitis" was responding to me when I said that account with the name "Mickiel" did something. So, "Thewayitis" is saying that something "Mickiel" said is something that "Thewayitis" said. Therefore, the human that controls "Thewayitis" and "Mickiel" would have to be the same person. That's logic.
The more mass, the more evidence of a great power; which again points to a God. How could such awesome mass, be birthed from such meaningless speculation as a black hole of nothing?
Things existing are proof of things existing. Not things existing and something that can't be tested exists.
You are assuming these patters are deliberate rather than a result of properties of matter themselves.
Patterns are a construct of how we recognize things. Recognizing physical patterns in reality points lets us discern things like the big bang.. Science tries to explain these via tests that can be verified as to why they exist as they do, like gravity, bigbang, properties of matter etc. You are just saying X did it.
That is not knowledge or proof, that is a belief.
Your logic still hits the issue of turtling all the way down.
Also if you disagree with a person....there are links below arguments that allow you to string a conversation together.
Things existing are proof of a creating existence. You are assuming that things are self created, therefore they self exist, I dispute that. Gravity is a law, in my view, law exist because a law giver exist. You think laws created themselves, or gravity created itself; I disagree with that.
What you believe requires MUCH more than belief or faith or theory, it requires that I take residence on fantasy island, something I refuse to do.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” . “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
photons in the form of light or other radiation make perfect orbits passing smoothly through all the (10 or 11) dimensions of space-time.
Photons which are in complex orbits around each other (another way to say matter) no longer can pass smoothly, and so they tangle (distort) space. This tangling of space is what we call gravity.
God exist, and emotional content is proof of it. How could a thing like emotion come from random selection or nature, neither of which have innate consciousness of themselves ; nature is not a being with purpose, its a creation of God that men try to replace God with. Consciousness, another proof of God, is the governor of human behavior, and emotional content is an expression of a conscious tinkering of man by its creator.
But aliens don't exist within our solar system... why would aliens come to a different solar system, create life, and then leave us with out checking on us?
God is, period! And its absolutely nothing any of us can do about it. We can cry, complain, not believe, and try to be gods ourselves; but the earth is the Lords, and those who don't like it, can't do anything about it.
God is not, period! And its absolutely nothing any of us can do about it. We can cry, complain, believe, and try to not be gods ourselves; but the earth is not the Lords, and those who don't like it, can't do anything about it.
Funny, when I spin it around it doesn't sound any better.
Superb argument, stellar in fact, except of one thing, Ruazenith is the Lord of our existence, and along with other ○new, the existence of everything within our universe. Luckily for you, Ruazenith has no interest in those who choose not to follow, they will simply be lost to time. It's not too late if you to work for persistent existence, Ruazenith is lord, all you have to do is work with us to achieve this universe's Final State.
xcuse me!It's all because of harmonal changes not because of any god..!! if god was there why was there a need of crying! doesn't he want his devotees to be happy and not to cry!!!? think before you write!!
Incorrect. It isn't really even evidence anymore since we know that emotions are a mixture of chemical and energetic reactions.
How could a thing like emotion come from random selection or nature, neither of which have innate consciousness of themselves
They don't need such a thing. Emotions serve evolutionary advantage.
nature is not a being with purpose,
True, what is your point?
Consciousness, another proof of God, is the governor of human behavior, and emotional content is an expression of a conscious tinkering of man by its creator.
Another set of chemical and energetic reactions that serve evolutionary advantage. You do understand the basic premises behind Natural Selection, right?
I believe in God for many reasons , and many of those reasons are scientific. I think science is taking us up, and up there somewhere is God. I think one can believe in both science and God. In fact, science used to be in the church, and many founding fathers of science were believers in God. They just got tired of " Church regulated science" and rebelled and left. That was what is known in history as the " Scientific Revolution."
One of the origins of science was a search for the divine. Or God.
Intelligence comes from intelligence; consciousness was born from a Consciousness. Our consciousness was not continuous with the idiotic bloodline of non speaking apes. We came from consciousness; from intelligence, how could humans originate from things far less than themselves, like magic rocks appearing from nowhere and evolving into conscious beings billions of years later?
Intelligence comes from intelligence; consciousness was born from a Consciousness.
From what do you base this assumption, and how do you identify 'intelligence' and 'consciousness?' Because both, as I understand them, do not generally represent binary phenomena but a sliding scale of less intelligent to more intelligent, less conscious to more conscious.
A number of animals can be demonstrated to have some form of self-awareness or 'consciousness' and a broad spectrum of intelligence (as measured via pattern recognition, problem solving, and a number of other measures) can be observed as well.
If we observe the development of a fetus- the initial zygote has no consciousness or intelligence, as it is lacking the physical structures necessary for these (neurons, primarily). These gradually develop and become more complex as the fetus matures, and still more after it is born- but actual intelligence and consciousness/self-awareness don't come into play until well after birth. If human development is not a case of intelligence coming from unintelligence, I don't know what is.
How can increasing complexity be born from no complexity? How can we evolve from absolute nothing? Evolution is a result of design that was intended to grow and change, which points to a designer. Complexity points to a more complex existence , because intelligence, complexity, consciousness, has to have a cause before they take effect. They did not cause themselves. To avoid infinite regression, there must have been a consciousness that was always conscious, and that began our conscious existence. Which would mean that first consciousness is the most powerful; and power explains our existence, much better than some wild lucky big bang blast from nowhere.
Reason explains why consciousness could not have evolved from brainless nothing. Reason MUST be birthed from reason.
How can increasing complexity be born from no complexity? How can we evolve from absolute nothing?
Argument from Ignorance Fallacy
Evolution is a result of design that was intended to grow and change, which points to a designer. Complexity points to a more complex existence , because intelligence, complexity, consciousness, has to have a cause before they take effect. They did not cause themselves.
Unsupported assertion.
To avoid infinite regression, there must have been a consciousness that was always conscious, and that began our conscious existence. Which would mean that first consciousness is the most powerful; and power explains our existence, much better than some wild lucky big bang blast from nowhere.
To claim that complexity requires a more complex entity, and then to say that entity does not require a more complex entity is an example of the logical fallacy referred to as "special pleading".
Reason explains why consciousness could not have evolved from brainless nothing. Reason MUST be birthed from reason.
Unsupported Assertion
Please present arguments for your currently unsupported assertions. I've attached a link to a list of common logical fallacies for your reference.
Ignorance fallacy is a misnomer; Knowledge itself is a proof of God. Consciousness is awareness, how could we become conscious and aware, if we did not exist? We had to first exist, then be taught or given knowledge of that existence; again pointing to a creator as source. Ignorance cannot begin life, life cannot be born from ignorance.
It is unreasonable to state that reason can be created from unreasonable sources, such as chemicals and rocks. How in the world of reason could reason itself be born from imagined explosions in empty space? Explosions cause destruction, not life! That is unreasonable.
Awareness becomes awareness, when we become conscious, and we can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of, therefore consciousness cannot be originated from unconsciousness.
Ignorance fallacy is a misnomer; Knowledge itself is a proof of God. Consciousness is awareness, how could we become conscious and aware, if we did not exist? We had to first exist, then be taught or given knowledge of that existence; again pointing to a creator as source.
I agree that we have to exist to be conscious, but disagree that we have to be taught or given knowledge of that existence. We can be taught or told (that is stated, or "given" rather than taught) knowledge, or we can learn by observation, an outside agent isn't required.
Ignorance cannot begin life, life cannot be born from ignorance.
Would you please explain what you mean by this?
It is unreasonable to state that reason can be created from unreasonable sources, such as chemicals and rocks. How in the world of reason could reason itself be born from imagined explosions in empty space?
Assertion based on an argument from ignorance.
Explosions cause destruction, not life! That is unreasonable.
This demonstrates an intentional characterization of several scientific theories, or simply a lack of understanding about them.
Awareness becomes awareness, when we become conscious, and we can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of,
Agreed
therefore consciousness cannot be originated from unconsciousness.
This conclusion does not logically follow your argument because your argument doesn't make reference the origination of consciousness.
Scientists freely admit that the issue of abiogenesis has not been solved. There are a few hypothesis though.
There is a contradiction to your stance.
...intelligence, complexity, consciousness, has to have a cause before they take effect.
The above is at odds with this statement below.
To avoid infinite regression, there must have been a consciousness that was always conscious, and that began our conscious existence.
To claim this consciousness exempt from needing a creator as per your first statement is a fallacy called special pleading. The use of this fallacy in this case is usually backed with petitions of principle that cannot be falsified, that is cannot be tested for a true/false outcome of the test.
Evolution provides a mechanism for increasing complexity over time. I suggest you get your science based information from science based sources.
Consciousness is the governor of human behavior, you would have us believe our behavior originated from scientific theory, when its obvious it originated from an intelligent source that implanted the human body and mind with the ingredients of a living conscious being. Gave us cells and membranes that were impossible for mindless nature to create from instantaneous fiat!
You are showing me you don't understand what I wrote. You are also just reasserting your position thst was found lacking without addressing anyones issues they pointed out.
You said X. I said not X because Y. You then just restate X.
If your stance has to avoid questions to stand it is a weak stance. Science demands it meets questions head on, either by showing why the question is flawed or by applying the question to the issue.
Really though I am done with you. As if your inability to address your opponents points were not enough you seem to have only one note to play, and that is just asserting unsupported ideas. It is a variation of the emperor has no clothes when you insist it is evident. Also due to your interaction with Cartman in the dimes portion you appear to be thewayitis on another account.
It's often hard at times to prove to someone that God does exists, because a lot of the time people don't understand what you're trying to say, or get it. Almost all of the time that I've debated with someone, they always come up with an excuse to not believe that God exists. When really there is no excuse to not believe in God. Even when I give concrete evidence that God truly does exist they still say that I never gave concrete evidence.
I rather debate with someone in person about God because it's easier to listen to the person and to have a conversation. Debating someone online about God, there is always someone who doesn't address your points, or who obviously didn't read everything you wrote because a lot of the time, I've addressed their points, but I did but they just didn't read everything and they restate the question again when I've already answered their question but they didn't pay attention.
Dude, this is a great place for it. Why haven't you posted your concrete evidence on this site?
You're a perfect example of what I explained in my argument above. You don't read what I said and you only quote things that were in my argument and not the whole thing. And I have posted concrete evidence but people come up with excuses as I said above. Which clearly again you're a prime example of people who don't read or pay attention to everything I say. That's why I rather debate with someone in person then online.
You're a perfect example of what I explained in my argument above. You don't read what I said and you only quote things that were in my argument and not the whole thing. And I have posted concrete evidence but people come up with excuses as I said above. Which clearly again you're a prime example of people who don't read or pay attention to everything I say. That's why I rather debate with someone in person then online.
Are you happy now? I put every word you wrote down. I read what you write, and I change my argument based on what I see you write. I notice that all you did was complain instead of actually responding to what I actually wrote. Why is it that you feel like projecting your own flaws on people. You aren't as bad as other people on here, but you still do it.
You can't just say, I'm wrong just because you said so. You have to give reason not some vague statement with no evidence to support it.
Are you happy now? I put every word you wrote down. I read what you write, and I change my argument based on what I see you write. I notice that all you did was complain instead of actually responding to what I actually wrote. Why is it that you feel like projecting your own flaws on people. You aren't as bad as other people on here, but you still do it
Still a bit skeptical. Projecting my own flaws on people? Like what kind of flaws, you need to elaborate on the flaws that I have.
You can't just say, I'm wrong just because you said so. You have to give reason not some vague statement with no evidence to support it.
My experience has shown that this is a false statement. But, I will play along. You are wrong because I follow Green Eggs & Ham and it doesn't mention your God.
Still a bit skeptical. Projecting my own flaws on people? Like what kind of flaws, you need to elaborate on the flaws that I have.
Like not reading what others write, not understanding what other people say, always coming up with excuses, and you don't address peoples points.
My experience has shown that this is a false statement. But, I will play along. You are wrong because I follow Green Eggs & Ham and it doesn't mention your God.
Green Eggs and Ham is only a child's book meant for children and written for it. So what it doesn't mention my God.
Like not reading what others write, not understanding what other people say, always coming up with excuses, and you don't address peoples points.
I do read what other's write. Why do you think I'm writing back and quoting your statement? When it comes to the topic yes, I understand. I don't come up with excuses. I go from what God is teaching and He teaches that there is no excuse to not believe in Him. I've seen how Christianity is the only true belief system and why others refuse to believe it. I do address people's points. Am I not addressing your right now? I've just addressed your point about how you think that I don't "read what other's write, not understanding what other people say, always coming up excuses and how I don't address people's points".
The morality Argument is proof that God exist. Its asking a lot for humans to accept that a destructive blast in empty space eons ago generated rocks and chemicals, which formed a planet, which birthed water, then somehow got the chemicals to form a fish, which eventually grew legs and crawled to the surface, and eventually evolved into an animal, which happened to know how to create humans, THEN give them morals.
Conversely, its more factual and logical to believe that a Great Moral being already had morals, and installed them into his children; giving morality a spiritual origin that is greater than ourselves.
The Ontological argument proves God exist. If we can conceive in our consciousness the existence of God, then can we conceive of something that is greater than him? Can we out think God? Can we replace him with ourselves? Many men are trying, saying " I am God", and creation now is the creator. The reason we gather this gall, is because we are created in God's image, ( which means consciousness), and we begin to start thinking for ourselves, thus we conceive we are greater than God, or no longer need a God; we become gods unto ourselves.
We think like this because we came from a great thinker, and a little of it rubbed off on us.
Atheism is proof of God, it would not exist without Theism. The term A-Theism, came from Theism. If God did not exist, why should Atheism? Atheism is the argument against the reality of God, if God was not real, then Atheism would not exist. The reason why Atheism has no future, is because of the reality of God.
This is so awesome. You claim that Atheism exists because God exists, and because God exists Atheism will be wiped out. Brilliant. Please post more, this stuff is hilarious.
I think Atheism exist because of Theism, or evidence of God. Why would a counter argument exist, if the argument did not exist, one exist because of the other. Atheism is the flip side of Theism, the same coin. Its just human consciousness primed in opposite directions, from the same origin. Its a hidden karma; the up and down which think they are not linked, because they oppose. Its distorted union.
An Atheist is a human who does not believe in its parent.
soo what do you mean to say god is our parent?? and yes i am an atheist just because i don't believe in anything until and unless i have not seen it with my eyes!!!!!
Biblical Archaeology is proof of God. History is just the unfolding of human events ; and ancient humans always worshipped God, and humans have never stopped doing it, and a vast majority of humans have always considered God to be real, and history and Archaeology proves that. Archaeology dovetails with the bible in many ways. Too many ways to list here.
what do you mean by history and archaeology proves it!? it doesn't it was all in ancient times when man was a foolish person not knowing that he has brains!but now when we are knowing it we don't believe in it!!!! because we have found the answer to the question WHO HAS CREATED OUR UNIVERSE!! AND HOW??
Language is proof of God, ( or communication). How do you suppose humans learned to communicate? Where did even the desire AND ability to fulfill that desire even come from? In order to have language, you must first have Consciousness, ( which is a proof of God); you must have vocal cords and a Throat. Now do you honestly think these things were just randomly self created with no purpose, but then decided to join and produce a voice? A voice with no thought of what to do or say with it?
No, the Genesis account has a lot contained in it. We were given language, and the ability to speak by our creator.
language is not a proof of god! its all because when man just started to know that they have brains and that is to use for their living they struggled for the communication between them!! when they struggled they found their answer to it as communication through sign languages and then writing and then speaking and etc.it was the man's hard work and his enthusiasm to lead a peaceful life! and just answer to my one simple question if god was there present at that time then why didn't he helped his creations!! and simply gave them the idea to talk directly!!! why did they have to use the sign language first and then making different sound by dancing and then finally talking??????
Females are proof of God. The sheer beauty of them reflects a genius in creation. Why would nature even think in terms of male and female? For what? If we randomly exist, then our purpose would be randomly understood. The fact that females exist, PROVE that a creator wanted humans to reproduce, and animals as well. Which is why generation genes are also evidence of God. Nature is too stupid to figure that out. There is divine purpose in the female, we can track the mind of God through just the design in her body.
Don't give over this great creation to speculation and book theory. She is God's finest creation. Well ordered, and by the way, Order is another proof of God.
Its not because of god its just when a ape was created there were some genetic mutations and then a lady ape or whatever a women appeared or vice versa. frankly speaking... its all about science not god!!!!
Why not both? What if God caused the Big Bang to create the universe? What if science and religion can both be right. And when the bible talks of how old the world is, a lot of it can be symbolic. Obviously everything wasn't created in one week, it's simply a story to tell how God made everything.
How could everything in the Universe be so perfect without a higher plan? How could a phenomenon like thought or emotion occur? And why have humans been worshiping Gods for thousands of years? We are not supposed to understand everything in the world, for faith is believing without seeing. Plus how could so many accounts of Jesus's miracles be written at completely different times and places yet all contain the same information? The evidence points towards a God. Anyway, I'd rather believe in a God that's not true and disappear when I die then not believe and him turn out to be real, condemning me to hell.
Science is right about many things, they are taking us up, and I think up there somewhere is God; so in my view, science can only lead us to God eventually. God may have used banging power to create, but the credit is his, not some mythical theory. As far as this hell you mentioned, I do not believe in such a mindless place; its just a myth religion created, to punish humans forever for temporary crimes is insane, the punishment does not fit the crime. Why would Christ be tortured on this earth, only that humans be tortured forever?
The bible does not talk about how old the world is, its billions of years old, and the creation days had to last an unlimited unknown time; God was in no hurry.
We all go to the same place after death. Christianity has given the wrong meaning of hell in the bible. The Old Testament mentions hell 31 times, each of those times it means " Sheol", the Hebrew word for grave. The New Testament mentions it 23 times, in 12 of those it means "Gehenna", which is a physical valley called Hinnom out side of Jerusalem. 10 of those times it means " Hades", or the grave. Only 1 time in scripture, 2 Pet. 2:4, does it mean a place of torment, and in that verse it is clearly referring to evil Angels being put there, not humans.
Nowhere in the entire bible is there a hell referred to that defines the " Christian hell", or the way Christians seem to want it to mean.
The word hell in the bible has been misinterpreted by Christianity, there is no biblical hell that fits Christianity's description of hell. In the OT hell is mentioned 31 times, each of which means " Sheol", the Hebrew word for the grave. In the NT its used 23 times, 12 times it means Gehenna, which was a garbage burning dump outside of Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom. 10 times it means Hades, or the grave, only once does it mean a place of suffering in 2 Pet. 2:4, and that is clearly only for demons, not humans.
The evil are changed after death, forgiven and given the free gift of life.
a person is good or bad when hes alive not when he's dead.. soo i think ther's no need of heaven for the good ones and hell for the bad ones!because after all this we go to the mother earth and sacrifice ourselves to her because she has given us so much.. its so simple that ther's no concept of heaven and hell.. :)
if god already wanted to create the universe then why didn't he gave mind to all the persons !!!??? as fast as they came up landing on earth???? please talk sensible things!!!!!!
first of all there is no hell and no heaven after getting buried we all are going underneath and get decomposed and get mix with the soil.. and become a type of manure for it!!! and how could you all believe in anything which you haven't seen with your eyes there were no higher plans.. it was a sudden explosion and a sudden creation of the universe.. and people believe it from thousand years because one person started the unknown thing it passed from generation to generation and got spread all over!and there were people who believed in it and people who didn't believe in it because they were intelligent and had a tendency to believe in real things which they have seen!!
lets see naa... and what we will pay ?? what's the judgement day???? its all rubbish you are talking of.. and we aren't going to hell! because we science believers do not believe in hell and heaven.. those who believe let them go...!i think you understood my saying.... hahaha :P
It wasn't clear because she didn't mention stupidity in the debate description. Either you made a random statement that made no sense, or you posted your response in the wrong place.
So kindly turn your anger where it is needed.
Oh, I wasn't angry at all, just wanted to know what you were talking about.
i am not saying like that !! but i think they are the people who believe in right things.. which are related to science and are hard to be proven wrong.!!!