ForumsWEPRA Debate/Challenge for all Atheist on AG

159 26007
redbedhead
offline
redbedhead
341 posts
Nomad

Now to start this off, I have but one request: I will respect you as an individual and as a human being as long as you will give me the same respect. Too many times have I debated over this topic in the past with atheists, and not to be bias but, most times in the PC world of today if you believe in theism or creationism you instantly become ridiculed for being an unintelligent imbecile. I took debate all four years of high school, throughout all of undergrad at KU, and I'm currently enrolled in Stanford for a double major in Law and Spanish. Now I have no degree directly in science but in no means am I unintelligent. I have studied this subject personally and have done my own research and have attended many seminars on the subject so I do know what I am talking about the subject. I do not want this to turn into a flame war of mind numbing mudslinging and dehumanizing of a person of an opposing view. So again I ask that this remains simply an intelligent debate over the topic.

Note:I wrote this all in Word then cut/pasted onto AG so if any format problems occur I apologize up front and I will try to edit and fix them as they arise.

Alright now for the exciting stuff. So here is the case.

How do you explain the beginning of a universe without intelligent design?

Alright now let me lay the foundation and boundaries for this case.
1. The most important out of all of these is what the case entitles. This is not a debate on if an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER exists at all (because there are plenty of threads on the forums that encompass this debate) , but how the universe came about in the first place WITHOUT intelligent design.
2. This being said it entitles that a world that was created by intelligent design is the status quo. Whether you believe it or not for the purposes of this debate it will remain the status quo making the defense against this case: the negative, and leaving the affirmative challengers with the burden of evidence.
3. If evidence is claimed be sure to back it up not using sole opinion and analytics to prove your point. (i.e. "Evidence proves that this happened!!" ....what evidence are you citing?)
4. Neither side can claim FIAT in any fashion. It either happens or it doesn't.
5. Keep it clean.
6. **IMPORTANT** To all mods reading this, as I said this is not a debate on rather or not an intelligent designer exists or not so this is not a repeat thread, rather a thread that is from a different point of view so please do not lock this thread for that purpose. Also I am aware (from a few years ago) that a majority of the mods are atheists and again I please ask that you do not use your power to make the debate unfair and you work with me to keep it on the right track as to not let it just become a giant hate flame war. I know mods in the past have, well to be blunt, have been flat out rude when it comes to topics like this which in turns creates an atmosphere for unintelligent debates. So let's just keep this one on the right path.

Alright now on to the second part of the resolution: To fully win this debate the following answers must be answered with compelling evidence or at least a substantial amount of them. I have made a wide scope of logical questions to be answered and I don't find a single one of them ridiculous even if you disagree they still must be negated.

1. Explain how some eternal random chance of quantum physics which would have to schematically predate time itself randomly burst forth such a force to create a start to everything out of nothing
2. How did we get something out of nothing
3. How did we get the carbon to form to start the building blocks of life
4. How did earth randomly become the only suitable place for a human being to live and how did it become so perfectly adapted to an orbit around a G2V superstar that would freeze us into an ice age if we were simply 1 or 2 light years further away or burn us to death if we were simply 1 or 2 light years closer.
5. How did the random chance of Earth being the only sustainable place for life occur, and if 6 billion years or more have passed why haven't we seen the same occurrence in other planets or at least the start of it?
6. How do you explain the beginning of time itself?
7. When, where, and how did the laws of the universe form and come about? (gravity, inertia, etc.)
8. Where did the matter come from to make life? How did life come to form from dead matter to living matter.
9. How did the matter get so perfectly organized and where did the energy come from to organize it?
10. What did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Since it would be asexual reproduction how do several single cell organisms develop into something completely different?
11. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival according to Darwin's theory of natural selection.
12. Does the individual animal or plant have a drive to survive, or the species in whole? How is this explained?
13. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
14. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants and animals become multi-celled? Where are the two-and three- celled intermediates? Where has the REAL missing link been found and not already disproven? Wouldn't there have to be several hundreds of missing links for each species to develop (from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds or simians) and if there are so many that wouldn't it be simple to find at least a few?
15. When did eyes or ears evolve and from what did they evolve from?

Satirical humor might seem funny to you such as "Oh you are very smart aren't you! I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn/Cold fire-breathing Garage Dragon too! It makes just as much sense as your invisible God! You're unintelligent and ignorant and I can't debate with someone as stupid and crazy as you because you believe differently than I do and I am significantly smarter than you." But the truth of the matter is; it's very offensive to me and I believe all the other Christians or theist on these forums that have to endure troll comments like this. I have not insulted you (maybe my views have) but I have not made fun of you or ridiculed you for your beliefs or commented on your intelligence. I hold myself to be a respectable man, and I won't stoop to the level of insulting a person for their beliefs. I am judging no one for their beliefs and I agree that every single individual is entitled to their own opinions and it does not make them any more unintelligible than me for believing something different. So making a remark about being a Pastatarian or challenging my intelligence is just rude and uncalled for and I hope no one will go to such lengths as being unprofessional over a complex debate.

As I am completely aware (being a Christian over the years) the biggest thing creationists are antagonized for is their "blind faith" for their religion of "gaps". I agree that I have much faith in God as a supernatural being that I cannot see who created everything we see today, but the evidence is purely in statistics and although this debate is not encompassing that directly; it's leading to my next point. That what it is that amazes me the most is the total denunciation of faith by the scientific community when they so do it themselves. How so? The fact that they try to just take it a step further past a divine creator, and look at the beginning of time an unanswerable question that just has to be assumed as a theorem. That alone, takes a great deal of faith to believe in something that honestly can't be proven or any logical argument would lead to an infinite loop that is really just not rational either. The argument will presumably take a turn to who created a creator which is not the main focus of this debate but to make this clear. The reason there is no need for a creator of the creator then the reason the creation needs a creator is like this example: Leonardo Da Vinci created the Mona Lisa in 1519. Yet according to this same exact theory, who created Da Vinci? So "let's just take it a step further and say" that the Mona Lisa created itself out of nothing. Whereas actually if we DO have evidence of design then it doesn't matter where did that object come from. Since we know that the Mona Lisa painting is designed and likewise we can't avoid the design inference by asking who made the painting. Similarly *IF* we can show that universe has design then you can't escape the inference by asking "Who made the designer?". Thus "who made god" may be a good counter to the cosmological argument but not so a good in the case of design arguments. Thus as stands a world created by intelligent design will remain the status quo for the entirety of this debate.

  • 159 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

god is the group of people who comes together to worship a faith in a religion, that in itself, a powerful group, is a god


That's no more god then me saying this keyboard I'm typing on is god. All your doing is taking things we already have defined and redefining it as god.

can u ever imagine how vast space ever is, how cells are formed, how life began. what is this thing we call time?


Personally? Not entirely but I try, yes, yes, and yes.
Sirgamesalot
offline
Sirgamesalot
9 posts
Nomad

Please correct me if im wrong in anything I say or if im missing something due to my ignorance...I have no fancy degrees yet, again please excuse my ignorance.

1. We haven't found out all the answers to prove such a thing

2&3. How was god created, by another god?

4&5. There are most likely other planets with the same conditions as earth. How do we know life can't exist in the extreme hostile conditions that aren't in the life zone of a star.

6. You can't, technically no 1 can prove it since there isnt tangible proof. We have dated things that have been around longer then what the bible claims the earth to be.

7. the laws of the universe have been proven and have been the basis of the many theories regarding the creation of the universe. Its irrelevant were they came from.

8. Again how was god created? We don't no

9. Natural Selection

10. Things change over time thats a widely accepted fact.

11. To keep there species from dying out.

12. Yes they have a drive, Do you want to die? What is you motive to live.

13. As time goes on things change it can be drastic or superficial.

14. We have found most of them havent we?

15. They evolved as we adapted to our surroundings They were needed to survive.

My point is that Many people simply don't no the answer. I just believe that a religion is basically a way to answer all the unanswered questions. As Science continues to develop i believe we would find less of a need for religon.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

I just believe that a religion is basically a way to answer all the unanswered questions.


The religious shouldn't answer all unexplained questions, by default, with God anyway.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

After reading 2 pages of inconsequential fluff, I think i'll just skip the rest and try to restart this, as I think this is a valid topic, and no one seems to get past your wording and instead look at the ideas behind it.

1. Explain how some eternal random chance of quantum physics which would have to schematically predate time itself randomly burst forth such a force to create a start to everything out of nothing


I don't have an answer for this, being as I was not there, no one else was, if in fact there was a predate to there being something, which would be nothing, you cannot thus measure or predict nothing, as there is nothing to predict. Which leads me to either conclude that there was always something, which is in itself flawed, or that an event caused something to appear from nothing.

2. How did we get something out of nothing


If in the case something did come from nothing, I can only go by what I think logical, no matter what it may seem to others. Where there is nothing, nature tries to fill the gap, so perhaps maybe it was self-generated.

3. How did we get the carbon to form to start the building blocks of life


I do not believe that we are the only life forms in the universe, the odds of that are just not in favor of us being the only living things in existence. There probably is another lifeform out there that is based off of another common element.

4. How did earth randomly become the only suitable place for a human being to live and how did it become so perfectly adapted to an orbit around a G2V superstar that would freeze us into an ice age if we were simply 1 or 2 light years further away or burn us to death if we were simply 1 or 2 light years closer.


Again, I believe this to just be the odds, that in all of the universe, the perfect set of circumstances is probably to occur somewhere in as far as we know an infinite realm, or so large we cannot conceive of it in it's entirety.

6. How do you explain the beginning of time itself?


I can only think that since events and matter are constantly in motion, there is a "forwardness" of which all follows, and we call this change "Time."

7. When, where, and how did the laws of the universe form and come about? (gravity, inertia, etc.)


This to me seems linked to your first question, and I assume that they exist because they are nececcary in some way.

8. Where did the matter come from to make life? How did life come to form from dead matter to living matter.


Again, random sequence of events, over billions upon trillions of unimaginable occurances, at least one formed into a cluster and that became adapting, and thus lead to life. I'm sure there's a better explanation of it, but I don't really want to go looking for one.

10. What did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Since it would be asexual


Evolution teaches us that things change through mutation, so somewhere along the line it stands that an error occured, due to exposure or lack of needed parts, and a favorable change occured, allowing a new organism to exist.

11. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival according to Darwin's theory of natural selection.


Fighting amongst everything would eventually lead to total destruction, so life must have evolved to be selfish, which in turn protects the species as a whole, and the continued existence through it's offspring.

12. Does the individual animal or plant have a drive to survive, or the species in whole? How is this explained?


I do not know, I have heard that it is encoded into the genes of an organism, but am not in any way knowledgeable on the subject.

13. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?


Through mutations, sometimes duplications occur, and those are non-harmful, so I can only imagine that once in awhile the copies of such genes is mutated, thus creating more overall over time.

14. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants and animals become multi-celled? Where are the two-and three- celled intermediates? Where has the REAL missing link been found and not already disproven? Wouldn't there have to be several hundreds of missing links for each species to develop (from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds or simians) and if there are so many that wouldn't it be simple to find at least a few?


I'm sure that there were, but as there is more genetic data, there is in turn more to handle, and that causes more mutations. Also, the missing link does not refer to every celled animal leading to current ones, from 1 celled to 100 trillion celled, but to the mostly proven theory that man evolved from apes, there is a substantial missing ***** in the chain that keeps it from being &quotroved." Regardless, I think that it is the most widely accepted theory.

15. When did eyes or ears evolve and from what did they evolve from?


I do not know when, but being a complex system I would guess long after single celled organisms appeared. They evolved from the same thing everything else did, adaptivtivty over time created the neccecary functions to have a higher chance at continuing life, and this included detected the vibrations in the air to know from which direction a predator is approaching, or vis-versa.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

If we truly did get something from nothing, God would be circumventing His own law.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I just believe that a religion is basically a way to answer all the unanswered questions.


A made up answer with nothing backing it just because it's convenient isn't an answer at all.
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,206 posts
Peasant

Too many times have I debated over this topic in the past with atheists, and not to be bias but, most times in the PC world of today if you believe in theism or creationism you instantly become ridiculed for being an unintelligent imbecile.


That's interesting, because in most places, in real life, if your an atheist your being ridiculed and discriminate.

1. Explain how some eternal random chance of quantum physics which would have to schematically predate time itself randomly burst forth such a force to create a start to everything out of nothing


I really like how theists want an answer to everything. Like a lot of people said, we are just humans, we don't know everything. But I do know that believing in a corrupted god is worst then believing in...the unknown if you can say it like that. Rather try to really discover what it is, then put my believe in something that is 2000 years old and isn't proven and never carry on.
Dragonblaze052
offline
Dragonblaze052
26,677 posts
Peasant

It seems many of your questions have a single answer, viruses. They are living, though not classified as such under the current system. They occasionally fracture the DNA of cells they enter but don't destroy, thus causing genetic drift and contribute to evolution. We are less than 1 light HOUR away from the sun, not light years. Life only last for a short time. Reproduction doesn't make "more mouths to feed", it makes life last. For all we know, there were many life forms that didn't reproduce. If they don't reproduce they go extict at their first loss. Everyorganism tries to survive buut will sacrifice themselves for the greater good, ie. an octopus gaurding its eggs while starving and being attacked by cod. All senses originated as a sense of pain in reaction to a certain stimulus. Extremely high frequency vibrations (light), low frequency vibrations (sound), molecular vibration (heat), chemical reactions (taste), and general movement (fealing). Matter is just a high density form of energy, E=mc^2. A controvesial theory as to the origin of the universe is a leak in another universe. I take that stance, but it offers no answer as to the origin of the first universe nor why they leak. Life exists on distant worlds as an enevitable result of time and probability. The reason we can only survive on Earth is that we are made to live here. If we evolved on Mars, we would only be able to live on worlds such as it.
Those who question Red's theologic knowledge should read again. He said he personnaly studies the subject.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

I'm still waiting for the OP to come back and address us now that most, if not all, of his questions have been answered with a great level of clarity and with supporting evidence. I think they forgot to teach him in his law classes that part of the debate is to respond to your opponents.

Either that, or he actually looked up all the proof for what many of us have been saying, realized that we're right and there is no logical reason to believe in a supernatural deity, and has decided not to inform us of his de-conversion from superstition. (hey, a guy can hope can't he? xD)

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I really like how theists want an answer to everything.


I see nothing wrong with wanting to have such answers, however people also have to accept when there isn't an answer instead of just making something up.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

How do you explain the beginning of a universe without intelligent design?


I don't need to.

That's a stupid question to pose, first of all, because than if you propose God made something everything out of nothing, then what made God?

In either instances we have to assume that something exists out of our knowledge. Ie, God, or the mysteries of creation out of nothing.

This thought wholly destroys the argument. But to further this notion of void knowledge, we come upon agnosticism which holds that nothing can be known. Such truths are simply out of human grasp. Our logic is only based on our observations. Logic, as omnipotent as it may seem, is limited only to our boundaries of observation. Therefore, if we have not seen a parallel universe where 2+2=5, we cannot argue mathematics as we have perceived it here. Likewise, how on Earth can we argue the existence of God or the universe, an idea that is to exist in another world, in another time, at a different dimension? It's out of the human boundary.

But if you really want to stick to Earthly logic then doesn't seem obvious to you that humans created the idea of God? According to our perceptions, everything has to be created. Nothing can come from nothing. Humans always sought to answer question they were not fit too. No one could explain the creation of the world through already known science. Instead, they created the idea of a God. They said "Something must have created the Earth, something must make the sun come up and our crops grow. This something could not be Earthly obviously, because there is no such power on Earth, there must be a God..."
And this rings so wholly true if you do a study of ancient societies. They all formed various religions attributing these mysteries to Gods. Christianity wasn't the first faith, and it certainly isn't the only one.

So certainly you see how science discredits religion.
The idea of God was prevalent in ancient societies because it best explained the creation of the universe. But science becomes an antagonism as it progresses and gives real answers to our previous mysteries. We know now why and how crops grow, what makes them grow faster, what diseases they are prone to, etc. As science finds an answer, the idea of God becomes obsolete.

Not that this wholly discredits the existence of God because I still hold true to my agnostic principles. Anything is possible out of our boundaries of perception. God may exist, we might be a Sims game, we might be artificial creations of a geeky computer programmer we call God, God might be trolling us, ???, ???, ????, etc. The possibilities are endless and I can only conjure those that I am accustomed to.
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,206 posts
Peasant

I see nothing wrong with wanting to have such answers, however people also have to accept when there isn't an answer instead of just making something up.


Hmm...

I really like how theists right away, want a direct and simple/clear answer to everything. When everything isn't that easy, nor do we know everything.
Zydrate
offline
Zydrate
383 posts
Farmer

That's because Christians want to ask -us- things and use our answers to judge us.
See, all they have is a book and they just point at that. But when we get asked things we will admit we don't know some things. We simply don't believe or care but it's an instant "HA YOU'RE IGNORANT".

Funny how that works.

Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

How come atheists are always challenge, Christians sometimes, but never agnostics? I challenge agnostics - how do they know that God is unknowable?

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

How come atheists are always challenge, Christians sometimes, but never agnostics?


Interesting you should say that. Agnostics (at least most of them) are also atheists. Their stance that God is unknown/unknowable leads them to refrain from asserting that there is in fact any deity. It would be like a Methodist challenging a Lutheran as to the existence of YHWH. They already believe the same thing regarding the topic so a challenge would be asinine.
Showing 136-150 of 159