Login/Sign Up




Creation of the world
Religion

alex851
Mar 12, 2010
14 votes
7 debaters
1


+ Add Argument

6
A single god, or gods, created the Earth and the beings that live on it.


ericcartman
Mar 13, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: matt1989 Show

We happen to have a lot in common: I like theories too! Now I will defend my argument the same way you defended yours: Well the God created everything theory describes the creation of the earth (if you need me to elaborate say so). Also, the theory of God intelligently creating us covers how we got here (humans).

There, I defended my argument just like you did, making theories.

 
againstthecurrents
Mar 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
ya I'm on matt's side here.

It seems like one side is arguing theories are lesser than facts,
but facts are simply theories that have been tested over and over
again.

Religion is certainly one of the oldest activities in human histories, so I suppose
it is a "fact" that humans are drawn to it.

None of the symantics do anything to explain what was before the big bang,
where the end of space is, how to understand infinity, what is after death etc.

For hundreds of years scientists simply believed they were unveiling the work of God
when they discovered new scientific principles.

Science and Religion play different roles in society, but they are certainly intertwined.

 
aceofspades25
Mar 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
First of all, I would like to start by saying that it is virtually impossible to prove anything. Even science rarely "proves" things. For example: We notice that gravity operates according to the same laws all over the earth, we then look up at the sky and notice that stars and planets operate according to those same laws, AS FAR AS WE CAN SEE. What this tells us is that in all likelihood, the laws of gravity as we understand them are universal. It is entirely possible that scenarios could be discovered where the laws of gravity fail (e.g. Inside black holes) - at this point they will need to be reformulated.

The only evidence we have for our understanding of the law of gravity is circumstantial. This doesn't mean to say that were not 99.9999% confident that our understanding of this law is correct, it just means that if we take what we know and there is enough evidence for it, we can be fairly confident that our extrapolation of that law will hold true.

In the same way, theism can't be proved, but we can use circumstantial evidence to say that in all likelihood, the universe was created.

There are many, MANY arguments put forward by theists, that atheists have a hard time disputing. I don't have the time now to give an in depth analysis of each of these, so I will simply list them for now, and set out their premises:

KCA (The Kalam Cosmological Argument)
1) Whatever begins to exist has cause
2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore the universe has a cause

The Platinga Ontological argument:
1) If a maximally great being possibly exists, then it exists in a possible world W
2) However, if a maximally great being exists on one possible world, then it must exist on all possible worlds by virtue of being maximally great, since this entails that it is necessary existent
3) A maximally great being must therefore exist in the actual world. Therefore, God exists

There is the Perry Marshall argument based on Information theory:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

There are arguments based on how the universe has been finely tuned to support life.

There are arguments based on irreducible complexity. (There are certain biological systems that can only function if all of its parts are present)

There are arguments based on objective morality. Why are there certain moral values that are true for all people and all cultures? e.g. It is wrong to torture babies etc.

When all of these arguments are considered, the evidence in support of a universe that was created is overwhelming.

In all likelihood, the universe was created.

 
ericcartman
Mar 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: matt1989 Show

You said "Big Bang Theory", so you did make a theory. Next debate that you want to present something as a fact, don't call it a theory first. Contradicting yourself isn't good in debates.

The fact that they are widely accepted doesn't mean anything, after all, creation of the world by a god/gods is a lot more widely accepted, especially in undeveloped nations.

The fact that they are "based" on facts but lack 100% proof also proves nothing: I could say that religion is correct because it is centered in the fact that we exist.

Although I believe that there is a lot more proof for the big bang theory than there is for the existence of a god/gods, science will never be able to "prove" the Big Bang Theory until/if it develops time travel. So please don't tell me to use scientific proof until you use some yourself. The fact that the scientific community widely accepts a fact doesn't increase the likelihood of it being true, for example, Aristotle believed many incorrect things that society automatically believed.

If you think just how incredible and infinitely complex our existence is, then it is difficult to prove that everything we know was caused by a string of random events. Contrastingly, it is not that illogical to believe that an all powerful entity could have set in motion a string of events that created a reality that is as deep as infinity itself.


 
helpme
Mar 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: naomikins Show

NUFF SAID says absolutely nothing.

 
aceofspades25
Mar 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: matt1989 Show

Regarding the Platinga Ontological argument:

Perhaps you should check with Alvin Platinga (a renowned professor of philosopher) yourself. There is a lot of information about his arguments on the net. I won't defend this particular argument, since although I follow the logic, I have my doubts about the premises. The reason I mention it is that this argument is still hotly debated by philosophers today.

Regarding my argument from Information theory: No codes do not have to be created by someone intelligent, but since all codes in the universe have been created by varying forms of intelligence, it seems odd that DNA is the only counter example of this and likely that DNA was designed as a code storage mechanism. (see www.cosmicfingerprints.com)

 
+ Add Argument

8
The Earth and the beings that live on it have been solely created by science and evolution.


matt1989
Mar 12, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Well the Big Bag Theory describes the creation of the earth (if you need me to elaborate say so). Also the theory of evolution covers how we got here (humans) and it's very factual. But, neither of these theories have to be exclusive of some sort of creator.

 
matt1989
Mar 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

I didn`t make any theories, these are widely accepted around the world and they are based on facts. I will require you to elaborate on these theories but using facts and scientific proof instead of storytelling please.

 
matt1989
Mar 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: aceofspades25 Show

The KCA,

The cause of the universe is more widely accepted as the big bang although anything before that could include a creator.

The Platinga Ontological argument,

This theory states IF there were a God it would exsist in a world. if there were many worlds it would have to exist on all of them. we are a world, therefore it exists...Explain the logic to that one...

The Perry Marshall argument based on Information theory,

from what I`ve read about the information theory, it doesnt say that codes have to be created by someone intelligent. Beyond that DNA is the result of molecular bonds.

Certain moral values such as the torture of babies for example, would exist without religion or a creator

 
matt1989
Mar 15, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

I did not "make" any theory, The Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, most of which is proven using complex testing methods. Religion has no scientific provable ground, whereas the theories that I stated towards my argument do.

We could definately prove the Big Bang Theory without time travel. Already we are able to see almost 13 billion years into the past to see how galaxies were developed early on. This is achieved by simply looking deeply into space.

As you know light takes time to travel a distance, the further away the object is the longer it takes the light to reach us. Therefore the light that we see in the night sky could be hundreds of thousands of years old because the stars that we look at are so far away that the light took that much time to reach us. So, by seeing objects that are tremendously far away, we are esssentially looking into the past. In hubble ultra deep field, which is between 2.5 and 10.5 billion light years away we are looking at the way galaxies form and how they do so in such a primitive stage, also we note that the galaxies are significantly closer together than they typically are now. These galaxies are so far away we can see almost 13 billion years into the past, less than 1 billion years from the estimated big bang.

Aristotle believed several things that were incorrect that he believed to be true. Not everyone believed him, and he was soon after proven to be wrong when many more accurate theories were put fourth that fit observations better. Thats the great thing about science, its always getting more and more correct.

Nothing that ever happens is random. Everything can be calculated, though its complexity makes it difficult. This is not to say that everything does not follow laws because it is in fact the opposite and if someone had enough time (or a computer powerful enough to complete such calculations) we could predict the future by precisely knowing everything there was to know about the present.

As I said before we have no way (or reason to develop a way) of knowing what happened before The Big Bang, so having a creator is certainly something you could suggest. Though I could also suggest that the universe before the big bang was water, or the matrix with Neo or insects or anything that I could possibly think of and it would be a valid suggestion.

 
naomikins
Mar 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Big Bang nuff said

 
silverfish
Mar 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
1. Plate Tectonics
2. Hubble's view on galaxies 13 billion light years away
3. The fossil record's increasing diversity in order from present.

The excuse that God make the world only seem a billions of years old is ridiculous.

 
matt1989
Mar 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: aceofspades25 Show

Wow, I can't believe you used such a biased source in a debate. The entire website is completely against what we have learned so far about anything that goes against religion. Though I agree that it does seem odd that DNA would be the only counter example of codes being created by intelligence, but I haven't done any research yet on proof opposing that. It seems kinda predictable that such a website would say that don't you think?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world